Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan
LOK 2026 (10) SC 160
Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1141
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta & Sheel Nagu; JJ.
- Case No.
- Crl.A. No. 4995 of 2026
Counsel For the appellants: Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocates (for Mahesh Chandra Joshi); Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR, and Mr. Kaushal Sharma, AOR (who argued for Mukesh Pathak), with Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Rohit H. Nair, Ms. Benila B.M., Mr. Angad Pathak, Ms. Ishika Gandhi, Ms. Soumya Sharan, Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu and Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Advocates. For the State: Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Additional Advocate General; Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
Provisions referred
Headnote
Bail — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC — Jal Jeevan Mission tender scam — Forged IRCON certificates; tenders worth ₹979.45 crore — Gravity of allegations is relevant but cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations or justify indefinite pre-trial detention — Investigation complete and chargesheets filed — Case rests on documentary and electronic evidence already seized — No need for custodial interrogation; risk of tampering substantially obviated — Appellants already on bail in the connected PMLA and CBI cases on the same facts, with no misuse of liberty — Senior citizen (about 72) in custody over five months; co-appellant nearly eight months — 22 accused, 124 witnesses, 20,000 pages, charges not framed — Art. 21 — Pre-trial detention must not become punishment — Parity with co-accused on bail — Bail granted on conditions.
The appellants were accused in the Jal Jeevan Mission tender case in Rajasthan, in which two firms allegedly won public-health tenders worth ₹979.45 crore using forged IRCON certificates. The High Court refused them bail. The Supreme Court accepted that allegations of large-scale fraud in a public welfare project are grave and that the State was justified in opposing bail. But gravity alone cannot override every other consideration or justify indefinite pre-trial detention. The investigation against both appellants was complete. The case rested on tender files, committee minutes, bank records, phone forensics and intercepts already in the agency’s custody, so neither custodial interrogation nor tampering was a real concern. Both were already on bail in the connected PMLA and CBI cases arising from the same facts, with no misuse of liberty shown. One is about 72 and had been in custody for over five months, the other for nearly eight. With 22 accused, 124 witnesses and 20,000 pages of records, and charges not yet framed, the trial would take long. Several co-accused had also been granted bail. Both were released on conditions, with all legal objections left open.
Full text locked
The full judgment is being updated in the library. Contact the Librarian on WhatsApp for a copy.