Prolonged detention without imminent trial violates Article 21; bail can be granted even under stringent laws if detention is deemed unjust.

ORDER :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal seeks the grant of regular bail to the Appellant in connection with ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023 dated 21.08.2023, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, “PMLA”).

3. The Appellant, Mahesh Joshi, served as Minister, Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Rajasthan. He was arrested on 24.04.2025. His bail applications were rejected by the Trial Court and subsequently by the High Court on 26.08.2025. The Appellant has therefore approached this Court seeking relief.

4. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, and Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Directorate of Enforcement.

5. The proceedings arise from allegations concerning forged IRCON certificates used in PHED tenders in 2022–2023. This led to multiple FIRs by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, departmental inquiries, suspension of officials, and blacklisting of firms during the Appellant’s tenure as Minister. The Appellant was not named in the original FIRs or the initial ECIR and was arrayed as an accused only upon filing of a later supplementary complaint. Since this order is confined to bail, we do not comment on the correctness of the allegations or the material.

6. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant submits that four co-accused, namely, Peeyush Jain, Sanjay Badaya, Padam Chand Jain, and Mahesh Mittal, have already been granted bail either by this Court or the High Court and that the Appellant stands on at least the same footing, thereby attracting parity.

7. It is submitted that even proceeding on the allegations as they stand, the amount directly attributed to the Appellant does not exceed Rs.50 lakh, attracting the proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA. The High Court, while declining bail, did not assign any reasons for the non- application of the proviso.

8. Learned senior counsel further submits that during his tenure as Minister, the Appellant himself took departmental action by suspending officials, blacklisting firms and causing registration of FIRs relating to forged certificates. These steps negate any inference of personal benefit.

9. The Appellant is 71 years old, has deep roots in society, and has cooperated throughout the investigation. He availed interim bail on two occasions and surrendered punctually, without any allegation of misuse.

10. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the documentary nature of the case, wherein large number of pages, witnesses and documents are cited by the prosecution, and that the matter remains at the stage of supply of copy of the police report and other documents under Section 207 , Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “CrPC”). It is urged that the trial is unlikely to commence in the near future, and prolonged incarceration would be inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. On the contrary, the learned ASG submits that the allegations relate to serious economic offences. He refers to what the agency describes as a financial trail involving movement of funds through M/s Mugdog Packaging India LLP, M/s Maxclenz Retail Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Jay The Victory, before reaching the firm of the Appellant’s son, M/s Sumangalam LLP. According to the respondent, the layering of transactions is consistent with money- laundering methods.

12. Reliance is placed on statements of certain co- accused recorded during the in