1. Appeal for regular bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act concerning allegations of forged certificates used in government tenders. (Para 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1995
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Mahesh Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5189 of 2025 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.13737 of 2025)
Decided On : 03-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Rohit H. Nair, Adv. Ms. Benila Bm, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sweety Chauhan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Rohit H. Nair, Adv. Ms. Benila Bm, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sweety Chauhan, Adv.
Prolonged detention without imminent trial violates Article 21; bail can be granted even under stringent laws if detention is deemed unjust.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Contention for grant of regular bail - Allegations regarding forged certificates in public tenders - Appellant, previously a Minister, arrested and denied bail by lower courts - Court noted appellant's cooperation, age, and ongoing lengthy process of bail application - Case involves extensive documentary evidence, and trial is unlikely to commence soon - Court emphasized the importance of Article 21 and the right to bail when prolonged detention is unjustified. (Paras 2, 3, 11, 13 and 17)
(B) Bail - Conditions for bail under stringent laws - Appellant's previous cooperation and non-threat to investigation support bail grant - Comparison with co-accused granted bail illustrates parity. (Paras 6 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested under the PMLA amidst allegations of forgery related to departmental tenders during his tenure. His bail was previously denied by lower courts, wherein the High Court did not provide specific justifications pertaining to statutory bail conditions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that continued incarceration is unjustified given the lengthy pending nature of the trial and the documentary basis of the evidence.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the appropriateness of bail given the alleged economic offenses and the continued need for the appellant's custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that inappropriate lengthy detention violates Article 21 rights, emphasizing conditions under which bail may be granted even under stringent statutes.
Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted under specified conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims parity, limited financial attribution, and trial delay; Respondent alleges serious economic offences, money layering, and risk of witness influence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Trial commencement is not imminent due to voluminous documentary evidence; prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 when trial cannot be reasonably concluded. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Constitutional Courts may grant bail under Article 21 if PMLA trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, notwithstanding statutory restrictions. (Para 13 )
5. Appeal allowed; Appellant granted regular bail subject to specific conditions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Can a Constitutional Court grant bail under PMLA if the trial is likely to be prolonged beyond reasonable limits?
Yes. If a trial cannot be reasonably concluded and incarceration becomes prolonged, Constitutional Courts must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21, as Section 45(1)(ii) cannot justify indefinite detention. (Para 13 )
7. What factors influence the grant of bail in PMLA cases involving voluminous documentary evidence?
Courts consider the duration of custody, the documentary nature of the evidence, the likelihood of trial commencement, the accused's age, and their conduct during previous interim bail. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. Does the stringent bail condition under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA override the right to a speedy trial?
No. The extraordinary powers of Constitutional Courts allow them to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, specifically Article 21, if trial conclusion is not possible within a reasonable time. (Para 13 )
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 investigation, with the submission that the later retractions are belated. It is contended that the Rs.50 lakh entry is not isolated and forms part of a larger financial pattern which, according to the agency, totals Rs.2.01 crore. The learned ASG submits that the Appellant, being a senior political figure, may influence witnesses who were departmental officials or contractors. Continued custody is therefore sought.
13. In V. Senthil Balaji v. De
