Mohali |(Written by Jasbir Malhi)Hearing the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) plea, seeking search warrants to raid premises linked to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in the alleged drug trafficking case against him, a Mohali district court on Saturday asked Majithia’s lawyers to present the legal basis for their demand for a copy of the search warrants on May 3.On March 27, the SIT had secured search warrants for over 500 locations linked to Majithia, but a day before the search was to be conducted, the former minister disclosed the development before the press, scuttling the SIT operation.
Following this, the SIT filed a fresh plea, seeking search warrants. According to a public prosecutor, on May 3, Majithia’s lawyers are expected to argue under which legal provisions they are entitled to receive a copy of the search warrant.On Saturday, however, SIT lawyers opposed the demand of Majithia’s lawyers, arguing, “If the search warrant is shared in advance, there is a high risk that the accused may destroy crucial evidence, and the investigation team will find nothing during the raids.”
“As per legal norms, locations to be searched cannot be disclosed before investigation,” they emphasised. Taking note of their arguments, the court asked Majithia’s lawyers to present the legal basis for their demand on the next date of hearing.On March 28, Majithia’s lawyers filed a petition before the Mohali court, seeking details of the locations to be searched. Following this, the court sought the SIT’s response and public prosecutors strongly opposed the demand of Majithia’s lawyers. Since then, both parties have been presenting their arguments in the court.
The Vigilance Bureau had earlier filed FIRs and submitted charge sheets into the alleged drug trafficking case against Majithia. However, the SIT has, so far, not levelled any fresh charges based on their investigation and sought search warrants looking for fresh evidence.During a hearing on April 5, the prosecution argued that Majithia was attempting to influence the investigation by making statements in the media. “He should be stopped from doing so,” the prosecution urged the court.
In response, the court directed the defence counsel to ensure that “no information related to the investigation or court proceedings is shared with the media. No details or facts of the case should be made public to preserve the neutrality and fairness of the investigation.”