1. Appellants seek regular bail following FIR registration over alleged irregularities in public tenders for welfare projects involving forged credentials and financial impropriety. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.
Mahesh Chandra Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4995 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15822 of 2026]
AND
Mukesh Pathak – Appellant
VS.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4996 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15862 of 2026]
Decided On : 16-10-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Jain- 2180, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Rohit H Nair, Adv. Ms. Benila Bm, Adv. Mr. Angad Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Soumya Sharan, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Sharma- 4383, AOR Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar- 1132, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Jain- 2180, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Rohit H Nair, Adv. Ms. Benila Bm, Adv. Mr. Angad Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Soumya Sharan, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Sharma- 4383, AOR Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar- 1132, AOR
Gravity of allegations cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention. When investigation is complete, evidence is predominantly documentary, and the trial is expected to be prolonged, the right to personal liberty under Article 21 outweighs the need for further incarceration.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7(c), 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Regular bail - Gravity of allegations vs. personal liberty - Gravity of allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention - Where investigation is complete, chargesheets have been filed, and the edifice of the prosecution’s case rests overwhelmingly upon documentary records and electronic trails, the apprehension of tampering stands substantially obviated and further custodial interrogation is not required - 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. (Paras 9, 10(a), 10(c))
(B) Parity in bail - Grant of bail to co-accused and in connected proceedings arising out of the same factual substratum is a relevant consideration in favor of granting bail to the applicants. (Paras 10(b), 10(d))
Facts of the case:
Accused were alleged to have conspired with public servants and private individuals to secure numerous work orders in a public welfare project by utilizing forged completion certificates and letters of acceptance. The allegations involved large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion. The High Court had rejected the applications of the appellants seeking regular bail.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the investigation against the appellants was complete with chargesheets already filed. The available evidence is primarily documentary and electronic, having been seized by the agency. Furthermore, the appellants had been granted bail in connected proceedings based on the same facts. Given the voluminous nature of the records and the number of accused, the trial is expected to take significant time to conclude.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail considering the gravity of the allegations versus the completion of the investigation and the likelihood of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the offense alone cannot justify continued incarceration when the investigation is complete, evidence is secured, and there is a high probability of prolonged trial. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 outweighs the prosecution's opposition when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary and parity with co-accused exists.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend their entitlement to bail due to investigation completion and lack of necessity for further custody, while the State opposes bail citing the gravity of allegations. (Para 6 , 9 )
3. The court found that completed investigations, the voluminous nature of evidence, and the liberty of co-accused weighed in favor of granting bail despite serious allegations. (Para 10 )
4. Prolonged pre-trial detention cannot function as punishment without trial, particularly when investigations are complete and evidence is in custody, infringing upon the fundamental right to liberty. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. The High Court order rejecting bail is set aside, and the appellants are directed to be released on bail subject to specified conditions and regular appearances. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
6. Does the gravity of allegations alone preclude the grant of bail pending trial?
No. While grave allegations regarding institutional corruption warrant strict scrutiny, the gravity of the accusations cannot eclipse all other considerations governing bail nor justify indefinite pre-trial detention, especially when investigation is complete. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What weight does the completion of investigation carry in the determination of bail?
The filing of charge sheets and custody of all documentary and electronic records by the investigation agency are weighty circumstances that mitigate concerns regarding tampering and negate the necessity for further custodial interrogation. (Para 10 )
8. Is the grant of bail to co-accused a relevant factor for an applicant seeking regular bail?
Yes. The court considers the parity of treatment regarding co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail as a relevant circumstance in evaluating the necessity of further pre-trial incarceration for the applicants. (Para 10 )
ORDER
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 on 12th October, 2026. Since both petitions emanate from a common FIR1 [First Information Report No. 245/2024 registered on 30th 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] and take exception to a common judgment and order dated 13th August, 2026 [impugned judgment], passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench [High Court], we propose to decide the appeals by this common order.
3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the applications of the appellants—Mahesh Chandra Joshi [S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11321/2026] and Mukesh Pathak [S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4007/2026]—seeking regular bail.
4. Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, registered on 18th January, 2024 by the Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur [ACB], to enquire into allegations of widespread irregularities in tenders floated by the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan [PHED], 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 acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited [IRCON]. Utilising these fabricated credentials, the two firms emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidders and secured work orders in 104 tenders (31 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.
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
