New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, accused in the alleged Rs. 979.45 crore Jal Jeevan Mission tender fraud in Rajasthan, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s refusal of bail.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that, though the allegations are grave, gravity alone cannot override the other considerations governing bail, particularly where investigation is complete, documentary evidence is already in custody, both accused are on bail in connected cases, and the trial is likely to be long.
The appeals arose from FIR No. 245/2024 of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, registered on 30.10.2024 under Sections 7(c), 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that between 2021 and 2023, two proprietorship firms, M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company (Mahesh Mittal) and M/s Shree Shyam Tubewell Company (Padam Chand Jain), took part in 237 tenders of the Public Health Engineering Department on forged IRCON work-completion certificates and acceptance letters, and as L-1 bidders secured 104 work orders worth Rs. 979.45 crore. The High Court had refused bail by its judgment of 13.08.2026.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Joshi, and Kaushal Sharma for Pathak. ASG S.V. Raju and Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra opposed the appeals for the State of Rajasthan.
At the outset, the Bench declined to decide the appellants’ contentions on the maintainability of successive FIRs, double jeopardy, the alleged breach of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the legality of Joshi’s arrest, leaving them open to be raised before the appropriate forum. It acknowledged that the allegations of collusion in a public welfare project “are grave and warrant serious scrutiny” and that the State was justified in opposing bail, but added that “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 then listed the circumstances that tilted the balance. First, the investigation against both appellants was complete, with Chargesheet No. 80/2026 filed on 12.04.2026 against Pathak and Supplementary Chargesheet No. 80-B/2026 on 29.06.2026 against Joshi. The case rested “overwhelmingly” on documentary and electronic records, all already seized, so no custodial interrogation or recovery was needed and the apprehension of tampering was substantially obviated.
Second, both were already on bail in connected prosecutions on the same factual substratum. Joshi, a senior citizen of about 72 years, has been in custody in this FIR since 07.05.2026, after over seven months of incarceration in the connected PMLA case before this Court granted him bail on 03.12.2025. The Court noted that nothing showed he had misused his liberty in the interval. Pathak, in custody since 18.02.2026, had been granted bail on 27.01.2026 by the Special Judge (CBI) in the CBI case on the fabrication of the same IRCON certificates, and was on bail in the PMLA proceeding.
Third, the record is voluminous, with 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 witnesses and 192 documents spread over 20,000 pages. Charges have not been framed, some co-accused are absconding, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The Bench reiterated that 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.”
Fourth, several co-accused had been granted protection or bail, including then Additional Chief Engineer Arun Srivastava by the High Court on 01.06.2026, and Shubhanshu Dixit and Sanjay Badaya, the alleged intermediary for Joshi, by the Supreme Court on 29.09.2026.
Concluding that further incarceration was neither warranted nor necessary and that the prosecution’s legitimate apprehensions could be met by conditions, the Court directed release on bail, unless wanted in another case, on bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The appellants must surrender their passports and not leave India without the trial court’s permission, cooperate with the Investigating Officer, not induce, threaten or tamper with witnesses or evidence, and appear regularly before the trial court. The trial court may cancel bail on breach.
The Court clarified that its observations are confined to bail and do not touch the merits or the roles attributed to the appellants.
Appearances:
For the Appellant (Mahesh Chandra Joshi): Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocates.
For the Appellant (Mukesh Pathak): Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent (State of Rajasthan): Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG, and Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Additional Advocate General.
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan (with Mukesh Pathak vs. State of Rajasthan), arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 15822 and 15862 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1141, decided on 16.10.2026
