Mahesh Chandra Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan
- Court
- Supreme Court
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1141
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 15822 OF 2026]
MAHESH CHANDRA JOSHI … APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 15862 OF 2026]
MUKESH PATHAK … APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15822 of 2026 and Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 15862 of 2026 were called on and heard sequentially
th
on 12 October, 2026. Since both petitions emanate from a common
1 th
FIR and take exception to a common judgment and order dated 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANIK KUMAR
Date: 2026.10.16
17:25:15 IST
Reason:
1 th
First Information Report No. 245/2024 registered on 30 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), and Sections 409,
466, 467, 468, 471, 477A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, hereafter
subject FIR
Page 1 of 9
2 3
August, 2026 , passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench ,
we propose to decide the appeals by this common order.
3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the applications
4 5
of the appellants—Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak —
seeking regular bail.
th
4. Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, registered on 18 January, 2024 by
6
the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur , to enquire into
allegations of widespread irregularities in tenders floated by the Public
7
Health Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan , under the
“Jal Jeevan Mission”, culminated in the registration of the subject FIR.
5. In essence, the prosecution alleges that 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)—acting in concert
with public servants in the PHED and private individuals, participated
in 237 tenders (68 and 169 tenders, respectively) on the strength of
forged and fabricated work completion certificates and letters of
8
acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited .
Utilising these fabricated credentials, the two firms emerged as the
lowest (L-1) bidders and secured work orders in 104 tenders (31
2
impugned judgment
3
High Court
4
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11321/2026
5
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4007/2026
6
ACB
7
PHED
8
IRCON
Page 2 of 9
tenders valued at Rs. 859.2 crore and 73 tenders valued at Rs. 120.25
crore, respectively) aggregating to Rs. 979.45 crore.
6. Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant—Mahesh Chandra Joshi, and Mr.
Kaushal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant—Mukesh
Pathak, have advanced extensive submissions contending that the
appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Per contra , Mr. S. V.
Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. Padmesh Mishra,
learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-
State, have vehemently opposed the appeals.
7. We have perused the materials on record in both the appeals which
disclose that the controversy surrounding the use of forged IRCON
certificates in PHED tenders unfolded through several administrative
and criminal proceedings.
8. Since the present appeals are confined to the question of grant of bail,
we are neither required nor inclined to embark upon a roving inquiry
into the merits of the prosecution case or to adjudicate upon the legal
contentions raised by learned counsel on behalf of the appellants
concerning the maintainability of successive FIRs, the plea of double
jeopardy, the alleged infraction of Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 or the legality of the arrest of appellant Mahesh
Chandra Joshi. All such contentions are left open to be agitated before
the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Page 3 of 9
9. 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.
10. Adverting to the facts on record, we find that several weighty
circumstances could tilt the balance in favour of granting bail to the
appellants, which are:
a. Investigation qua both the appellants is complete, having
th
culminated in filing of Chargesheet No. 80/2026 on 12 April,
2026 (against appellant Mukesh Pathak), followed by
th
Supplementary Chargesheet No. 80-B/2026 on 29 June, 2026
(against appellant Mahesh Chandra Joshi). The edifice of the
prosecution’s case rests overwhelmingly upon documentary
records and electronic trails comprising inter alia tender files,
minutes of Bid Evaluation and Finance Committees, official note-
sheets, correspondence with IRCON, bank account statements,
forensic reports of seized mobile devices, call detail records, and
transcripts of intercepted conversations, — all of which have
already been seized and are in the custody of the investigating
agency. No further custodial interrogation or recovery is required
Page 4 of 9
from either appellant, and the apprehension of tampering with
documentary or electronic material stands substantially obviated.
b. Significantly, both the appellants have already been enlarged on
bail in connected prosecutions arising out of the very same factual
substratum:
i. Appellant—Mahesh Chandra Joshi—a senior citizen aged about
72 years, has remained in custody in connection with
th
investigation of the subject FIR since 7 May, 2026 (for over five
9
months). Prior thereto, in the connected proceeding under the
10
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 , which involved the
same underlying allegations and the specific financial trail of Rs.
50 lakh to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP, he suffered
incarceration for over seven months before being enlarged on
rd 11
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 3 December, 2025 ,
subject to stringent conditions. Nothing has been placed on
rd
record to suggest that between his release on 3 December,
2025 and his arrest in the subject FIR, he misused his liberty,
attempted to influence witnesses, or impeded the investigation
in any manner.
ii. Appellant—Mukesh Pathak—has been in continuous custody in
th
the subject FIR since 18 February, 2026 (for nearly eight
months). In CBI Case No. RC2172024A0008, which specifically
9 st
ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023 dated 21 August, 2023
10
PMLA
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2633
Page 5 of 9
investigated the fabrication of the very same IRCON certificates,
the operation of the fake email IDs, the receipt of funds from M/s
Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company, and the staged verification at
Hotel Woodlark in Kattappana, Kerala, he was arrested during
investigation and was granted regular bail by the Special Judge
th 12
(CBI) on 27 January, 2026 , besides being on bail in the
connected PMLA proceeding.
c. The record of the case is undeniably voluminous, involving 22
accused persons, three chargesheets, 124 cited prosecution
witnesses, and 192 documents spread over 20,000 pages.
Admittedly, charges have not yet been framed, and the trial is yet
to commence for several reasons. Further, investigation into the
complicity of some co-accused persons is still pending, and several
other co-accused persons against whom arrest warrants have
been issued remain absconding. Having regard to the sheer
volume of oral and documentary evidence proposed to be
adduced, the trial as and when it commences is likely to take
sufficient time to conclude in the near future. 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
13
and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution .
12
Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2026
13
2026 SCC OnLine SC 2022, para 12
Page 6 of 9
d. We are also mindful that several co-accused in the subject FIR
have been granted interim protection or bail. Notably, co-accused
Arun Srivastava (then Additional Chief Engineer) was enlarged on
st 14
bail by the High Court vide order dated 1 June, 2026 , and co-
15
accused Shubhanshu Dixit (then Secretary, RWSSMB /PHED
Finance Committee) and Sanjay Badaya (the alleged intermediary
for the appellant Mahesh Chandra Joshi) have recently been
th
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29 September,
16
2026 .
11. Viewed in the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied
that further pre-trial incarceration of the appellants is neither
warranted nor necessary, and that any legitimate apprehension of the
prosecution can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate
conditions.
12. Consequently, the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to the
appellants cannot be sustained and is, to that extent, set aside.
13. Appellants—Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak—are directed
to be released on bail in connection with the subject FIR, unless their
custody is required in any other case, upon furnishing bail bonds and
sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such further
terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose, apart
from the following:
14
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4864/2026
15
Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board
16
Supra note 13, para 15
Page 7 of 9
a. appellants shall surrender their passports, if not already
surrendered, to the trial court and shall not leave India without
prior permission of the trial court;
b. inasmuch as further investigation is pending against certain other
accused persons, the appellants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation as and
when called upon to do so;
c. appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner; and
d. appellants shall regularly and punctually appear before the trial
court on each date of hearing, unless specifically exempted by the
trial court for justifiable cause, and shall cooperate in the
expeditious conduct of the proceedings.
14. Should either of the appellants breach any of the conditions imposed
or default in appearing before the trial court without sufficient cause,
it shall be open to the trial court to cancel the bail of the defaulting
appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
15. We clarify that the observations made in this order are confined solely
to the adjudication of the appellants’ prayers for bail herein and shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case,
the specific roles attributed to the appellants, or the probative value of
the materials on record, all of which shall be examined independently
by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
Page 8 of 9
16. The appeals stand allowed on the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
…………………………….J.
(SHEEL NAGU)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 16, 2026.
Page 9 of 9