The Supreme Court of India has granted regular bail to appellants Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in connection with alleged tender irregularities in the Rajasthan Jal Jeevan Mission. Setting aside an order dated 13th August, 2026, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that notwithstanding the gravity of allegations concerning large-scale financial impropriety in a public welfare scheme, prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be permitted to infringe upon an undertrial’s fundamental rights to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, registered on 18th January, 2024, by the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jaipur. The enquiry was initiated to probe widespread irregularities in tenders floated under the “Jal Jeevan Mission” by the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Rajasthan.
This culminated in First Information Report (FIR) No. 245/2024, registered on 30th October, 2024, for offences punishable under Sections 7(c), 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), along with Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, between 2021 and 2023, two proprietorship concerns—M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company (owned by co-accused Mahesh Mittal) and M/s Shree Shyam Tubewell Company (owned by co-accused Padam Chand Jain)—acted in concert with public servants in the PHED and private individuals. The firms participated in 237 tenders (68 and 169 tenders, respectively) on the strength of forged and fabricated work completion certificates and letters of acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited.
By utilising these fabricated credentials, the two entities emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidders and secured work orders in 104 tenders (31 tenders valued at Rs. 859.2 crore and 73 tenders valued at Rs. 120.25 crore, respectively), aggregating to a total value of Rs. 979.45 crore.
Following their arrest, both appellants filed regular bail applications, which were rejected by the High Court of Rajasthan on 13th August, 2026, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Submissions by the Parties
Appearing for appellant Mahesh Chandra Joshi, Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal made extensive submissions contending that the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. Counsel Kaushal Sharma made similar submissions on behalf of appellant Mukesh Pathak.
Opposing the appeals, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju and Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra, appearing for the respondent State of Rajasthan, vehemently resisted the grant of bail, underscoring the seriousness of the criminal activity and the scale of the alleged financial misconduct.
The Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Bench noted that the appeals were strictly confined to the question of bail. Consequently, the Court declined to embark upon a roving inquiry into the merits of the prosecution’s case or rule on legal contentions concerning the maintainability of successive FIRs, double jeopardy, alleged infractions of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or the legality of Mahesh Chandra Joshi’s arrest, leaving those issues open to be agitated before appropriate legal forums.
While addressing the seriousness of the charges, the Court observed:
“There can be no gainsaying that allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in the execution of a public welfare project such as the ‘Jal Jeevan Mission’ are grave and warrant serious scrutiny. We think, the State is justified in opposing the grant of bail to persons accused of involvement in such extensive criminal activity. Nevertheless, the gravity of the allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.”
The Court identified several weighty circumstances favouring the release of both appellants on bail:
- Completion of Investigation and Custody of Evidence: The investigation concerning both appellants is complete. Chargesheet No. 80/2026 was filed against Mukesh Pathak on 12th April, 2026, and Supplementary Chargesheet No. 80-B/2026 was filed against Mahesh Chandra Joshi on 29th June, 2026. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case relies overwhelmingly on documentary records and electronic trails—including tender files, minutes of Bid Evaluation and Finance Committees, official note-sheets, IRCON correspondence, bank account statements, forensic reports of mobile devices, call detail records, and intercepted communication transcripts. As all these materials have already been seized by the investigating agency, no further custodial interrogation or recovery is required, substantially removing any apprehension of evidence tampering.
- Prior Release on Bail in Connected Matters: Both appellants had previously been granted bail in connected proceedings arising out of the exact same factual substratum:
- Mahesh Chandra Joshi, a senior citizen aged about 72 years, had spent over five months in custody in the subject FIR since 7th May, 2026. Earlier, in a connected proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)—which concerned the same underlying allegations and a financial trail of Rs. 50 lakh to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP—he underwent incarceration for over seven months before the Supreme Court granted him regular bail on 3rd December, 2025. The Court noted that nothing on record showed he had misused his liberty, influenced witnesses, or impeded the investigation since that release.
- Mukesh Pathak had remained in continuous custody in the subject FIR since 18th February, 2026 (nearly eight months). In CBI Case No. RC2172024A0008—which specifically investigated the fabrication of the IRCON certificates, operation of fake email IDs, receipt of funds from M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company, and a staged verification at Hotel Woodlark in Kattappana, Kerala—he was granted regular bail by the Special Judge (CBI) on 27th January, 2026, in addition to already being on bail in the connected PMLA proceeding.
- Voluminous Record and Protracted Trial: The case involves 22 accused persons, three chargesheets, 124 cited prosecution witnesses, and 192 documents spread over 20,000 pages. With charges yet to be framed, investigation against certain co-accused pending, and other co-accused persons absconding, the Court noted that the trial is likely to take substantial time. The Bench reiterated:
“As repeatedly emphasised by this Court, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial in derogation of an undertrial’s Fundamental Right to personal liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” - Parity with Co-Accused: The Court noted that other co-accused had already obtained relief. Co-accused Arun Srivastava (then Additional Chief Engineer) was granted bail by the High Court on 1st June, 2026, while co-accused Shubhanshu Dixit (then Secretary, RWSSMB/PHED Finance Committee) and Sanjay Badaya (alleged intermediary for Joshi) were granted bail by the Supreme Court on 29th September, 2026.
The Decision
Holding that further pre-trial incarceration was neither warranted nor necessary, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment to the extent it concerned the appellants and directed the release of Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and the following conditions:
- The appellants shall surrender their passports, if not already surrendered, and shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.
- Inasmuch as further investigation remains pending against certain other accused persons, the appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate as and when called upon.
- The appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner.
- The appellants shall regularly and punctually appear before the trial court on each hearing date, unless specifically exempted for justifiable cause, and cooperate in the expeditious conduct of proceedings.
The Supreme Court specified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the trial court to cancel the bail. It further clarified that its observations are confined strictly to the question of bail and do not constitute an opinion on the merits, specific roles of the accused, or the evidentiary value of materials on record.
The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan (and Mukesh Pathak vs. State of Rajasthan)
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15822 of 2026 and SLP (Crl.) No. 15862 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: October 16, 2026
