The Punjab Vigilance Bureau’s roughly 40,000-page supplementary chargesheet in a disproportionate-assets case against Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia details a Rs 737-crore money trail, the Aam Aadmi Party said on Wednesday, placing alleged financial links involving liquor companies, foreign entities and business associates at the centre of the investigation.
According to the AAP, the supplementary chargesheet examines transactions connected with an industrial house and records what the party described as Rs 161 crore in unaccounted cash deposits, Rs 141 crore routed through foreign entities and Rs 236 crore in unexplained company deposits. The allegations have been presented by the party in connection with the vigilance investigation and are not established findings by a court in the material supplied.
The party also said the investigation revisited records involving Satpreet Singh, also known as Satta, and Parminder Singh, also known as Pindi. Their names had featured in Punjab’s synthetic-drug investigation, according to the report. The vigilance probe is stated to have examined company deposits, transfers involving liquor businesses and unexplained increases in fixed assets.
The case against Majithia was registered on June 25, 2025, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The registration followed an investigation report prepared by a special investigation team. The Punjab Vigilance Bureau subsequently filed its primary chargesheet in a Mohali special court in August 2025.
The latest development is significant because the supplementary filing, as described by the AAP, expands the financial trail under examination beyond a single transaction or asset. The figures cited by the party cover cash deposits, transfers involving foreign entities and company deposits, while the investigation also examines fixed-asset growth and business relationships. The supplied report does not provide the bureau’s direct response to the AAP’s account or details of the court’s assessment of the supplementary chargesheet.
A disproportionate-assets case requires investigators to examine whether a public official or other accused person’s assets and financial activity are consistent with known sources of income. In this matter, the vigilance bureau’s investigation report led to the registration of the case, while the primary chargesheet was filed before the Mohali special court in August 2025. The latest supplementary filing is therefore part of an ongoing legal process rather than a final determination of criminal liability.
The AAP’s statement has brought renewed attention to the case’s alleged money trail and to the institutional process through which the Punjab Vigilance Bureau is presenting its findings before the court. Further proceedings will determine how the court treats the material in the supplementary chargesheet and the allegations linked to the transactions described by the party.
