The Supreme Court has granted bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in a corruption case concerning alleged irregularities in Rajasthan’s Jal Jeevan Mission tenders, holding that the seriousness of allegations cannot, by itself, override other considerations governing bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s August 13, 2026 order refusing regular bail to the two accused. The Court considered the completion of investigation against them, the seizure of documentary and electronic evidence, bail granted in connected proceedings, and the substantial time likely to be required for trial.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The case originated from a preliminary enquiry registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, on January 18, 2024, into alleged irregularities in tenders floated by Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department under the Jal Jeevan Mission.
The enquiry culminated in FIR No. 245/2024, registered on October 30, 2024, invoking provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code relating to offences including criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of accounts and criminal conspiracy.
According to the prosecution, two proprietorship concerns—Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company, owned by co-accused Mahesh Mittal, and Shree Shyam Tubewell Company, owned by co-accused Padam Chand Jain—participated in 237 tenders between 2021 and 2023 using forged work completion certificates and letters of acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited.
The prosecution alleged that the firms acted in concert with public servants and private individuals. Using the allegedly fabricated credentials, they emerged as the lowest bidders and secured work orders in 104 tenders.
Of these, Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company secured 31 tenders valued at ₹859.2 crore, while Shree Shyam Tubewell Company secured 73 tenders valued at ₹120.25 crore. The combined value of the work orders was ₹979.45 crore. This figure represents the value of the contracts described in the order, rather than a finding of loss caused to the public exchequer.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in a public welfare project were grave and required serious scrutiny. It also recognised that the State was justified in opposing bail in a case involving allegations of extensive criminal activity.
However, the Bench held that seriousness could not become the sole basis for continued incarceration.
The Court explained that the gravity of allegations must be assessed alongside the stage of investigation, the need for further custody, the availability and security of evidence, and the likely duration of trial.
On the circumstances before it, the Bench concluded that further pre-trial incarceration of the two accused was neither warranted nor necessary.
A significant factor favouring bail was that the investigation against both accused had concluded.
A chargesheet against Mukesh Pathak was filed on April 12, 2026, followed by a supplementary chargesheet against Mahesh Chandra Joshi on June 29, 2026.
The Court noted that the prosecution case rested overwhelmingly on documentary records and electronic trails. These included tender files, committee minutes, official note sheets, correspondence with IRCON, bank statements, forensic reports of seized mobile devices, call detail records and transcripts of intercepted conversations.
These materials had already been seized and were in the investigating agency’s custody. No further custodial interrogation or recovery was required from either accused.
The Court found that the apprehension of tampering with documentary or electronic material had been substantially addressed.
The Bench also took account of the fact that both accused had obtained bail in connected prosecutions arising from the same underlying factual allegations.
Joshi, aged about 72, had been in custody in the present FIR since May 7, 2026, a period exceeding five months.
Before that, he had spent more than seven months in custody in a connected proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. That proceeding involved the same underlying allegations and a specific financial trail of ₹50 lakh to Sumangalam Landmark LLP. The Supreme Court had granted him regular bail in that case on December 3, 2025, subject to stringent conditions.
The Bench noted that nothing had been placed on record to show that Joshi misused his liberty, influenced witnesses or obstructed the investigation between his release in December 2025 and his arrest in the present FIR.
Pathak had remained in continuous custody in the present case since February 18, 2026, for nearly eight months.
He had also been granted bail by the Special Judge dealing with a connected CBI case on January 27, 2026. That investigation concerned the fabrication of the same IRCON certificates, fake email IDs, receipt of funds from Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and an allegedly staged verification at a hotel in Kerala. He was also on bail in the connected money laundering proceeding.
The Court highlighted the scale of the prosecution record: 22 accused persons, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents extending over 20,000 pages.
Charges had not yet been framed, and the trial had not commenced. Investigation into the involvement of certain co-accused remained pending, while several others against whom arrest warrants had been issued were absconding.
Given the volume of oral and documentary evidence, the Bench considered that the trial would take substantial time to conclude.
It reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot turn into punishment without trial, contrary to the fundamental rights to personal liberty and a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also considered that several co-accused had already received bail or interim protection. These included the then Additional Chief Engineer Arun Srivastava, the then Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board/PHED Finance Committee Shubhanshu Dixit, and Sanjay Badaya, described as an alleged intermediary for Joshi.
The accused had raised legal objections concerning successive FIRs, double jeopardy, alleged non-compliance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the legality of Joshi’s arrest.
The Supreme Court declined to decide those issues in the bail appeals. It left the contentions open for consideration before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The Bench also refrained from undertaking a detailed assessment of the prosecution case or determining the specific roles attributed to the accused.
The Court directed that Joshi and Pathak be released on bail in the FIR unless their custody was required in another case. They must furnish bail bonds and sureties to the trial court’s satisfaction and comply with any additional conditions imposed by that court.
Both must surrender their passports, if not already surrendered, and obtain the trial court’s permission before leaving India. They must also appear before the investigating officer whenever called upon and cooperate with the continuing investigation concerning other accused.
The Court prohibited them from influencing persons acquainted with the case, making threats or promises, or tampering with prosecution evidence. They must attend trial hearings regularly unless specifically exempted for a justifiable reason and cooperate in the expeditious conduct of proceedings.
The trial court may cancel the bail of either accused for breach of conditions or unjustified failure to appear.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Highest Auction Bids Can’t Be Rejected Merely for Being Lower Than Earlier Offers: Supreme Court
