The has ordered the immediate release of two individuals, Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, who were previously denied by the in a major corruption case involving the Jal Jeevan Mission. In an order dated , a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled that while the allegations of widespread irregularities in the are grave, they cannot justify the indefinite of the accused. The court emphasized that the prolonged incarceration of , without the commencement of a trial, constitutes a violation of the constitutional mandate under .
The litigation arises from a probe by the into 237 tenders under the state’s “Jal Jeevan Mission,” a public welfare project. The prosecution alleges that two firms— and —secured 104 work orders worth approximately ₹979.45 crore by utilizing forged and fabricated work completion certificates purportedly issued by . Following the registration of the First Information Report on , both appellants were arrested and remained in custody for several months.
Circumstances Favouring Judicial Relief
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was predicated on a comprehensive review of the current status of the investigation. The bench noted that the prosecution’s entire case rests on documentary and electronic evidence, including bank statements, forensic reports, and intercepted communications, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. Consequently, the court found that the need for further had been entirely negated.
“No further or recovery is required from either appellant, and the apprehension of tampering with documentary or electronic material stands substantially obviated,” the court observed. Furthermore, the bench highlighted that both appellants had already been granted bail in connected proceedings, including cases under the and investigations conducted by the , regarding the same underlying factual matrix.
Mahesh Chandra Joshi, aged 72, had been in custody since , while Mukesh Pathak had been detained since . The Supreme Court underscored that the appellants had not misused their liberty during their previous stints on bail, nor had they been shown to impede the ongoing investigation. The court found that the State's valid concerns regarding and could be adequately addressed through strict bail conditions, such as regular reporting to the investigating officer and the surrender of passports, rather than continued imprisonment.
Assessing Procedural Complexities
A significant factor in the bench's reasoning was the sheer scale of the trial, which, by all indicators, is expected to span a considerable duration. The case involves 22 accused persons, three separate chargesheets, 124 cited prosecution witnesses, and a voluminous record comprising 192 documents across 20,000 pages.
The court noted that, despite the passage of time, charges have not yet been framed against the accused, and the trial has yet to commence. With several other co-accused currently absconding and further investigations pending against others, the court concluded that the trial’s conclusion in the near future is an unlikely prospect. “As repeatedly emphasised by this Court, prolonged cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial in derogation of an undertrial’s to personal liberty and guaranteed under of the ,” the bench remarked.
The judges clarified that their decision was not a commentary on the merits of the allegations, which remain subject to independent during the trial. Instead, the focus remained on the balance between the State's interest in preventing financial crimes and the fundamental rights of those awaiting their day in court.
Balancing Public Interest and Personal Liberty
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the State had justifiable grounds to express concern over large-scale in a project as critical as the Jal Jeevan Mission. However, the bench stated firmly that the severity of a charge does not operate as an automatic bar to the right to bail.
“There can be no gainsaying that allegations of large-scale and in the execution of a public welfare project such as the ‘Jal Jeevan Mission’ are grave and warrant serious scrutiny,” the court stated. “Nevertheless, the gravity of the allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite .”
By setting aside the High Court’s earlier refusal of bail, the Supreme Court has directed that Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak be released upon the furnishing of and to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order includes a caveat that the trial court retains the authority to cancel this relief should the appellants violate the conditions imposed or fail to appear for the proceedings without justifiable cause.
With the investigation complete and the electronic evidence secured, the focus now shifts to the trial court, which will proceed with the complex task of adjudicating the merits of the corruption charges against the 22 accused, including the now-bailed appellants. The Supreme Court’s directive serves as a reminder of the judicial imperative to ensure that the process of law does not result in the permanent deprivation of liberty before a verdict is reached.
pre-trial detention - financial impropriety
