Granting Jal Jeevan Mission bail to two accused in the Rajasthan ACB case over tenders worth Rs 979.45 crore, the Supreme Court has said pre-trial incarceration “cannot masquerade as punitive detention” when the trial is nowhere near starting.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted regular bail to Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit, former Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board, in the Anti-Corruption Bureau case over alleged irregularities in the award of Jal Jeevan Mission tenders in Rajasthan, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s orders refusing them bail [Sanjay Badaya v. State of Rajasthan].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in an order authored by Justice Dipankar Datta on September 29, 2026, allowed the two appeals against the High Court’s orders of June 1, 2026 (Dixit) and August 13, 2026 (Badaya).
The prosecution case
The case arises from FIR No. 245/2024 registered by the ACB, Jaipur on October 30, 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC provisions including Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. The prosecution alleges that two private firms, M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and M/s Shri Shyam Tubewell Company, in connivance with senior public servants and intermediaries, used forged work-experience and completion certificates purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited to win about 104 tenders worth Rs 979.45 crore under the Jal Jeevan Mission, causing wrongful loss to the State. A chargesheet was filed on April 12, 2026 and a supplementary chargesheet on June 29, 2026.
Dixit, who served as RWSSMB Secretary from December 2022 to February 2024, is alleged to have suppressed whistleblower complaints and legal notices flagging the forged certificates and to have issued Finance Committee minutes that allegedly facilitated awards to ineligible firms. He was arrested on February 17, 2026. Badaya, a private individual, is portrayed by the prosecution as an intermediary acting for the then PHED Minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi; he is alleged to have collected cash bribes from contractors and routed money through relatives’ accounts to a firm owned by the then Minister’s son. He was arrested on May 11, 2026. These remain allegations to be tested at trial.
Economic offences serious, but evidence is documentary
The Bench agreed with the State that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously and that the State was justified in opposing bail. But it held that other features of the case could not be ignored:
“The investigation qua the present appellants is complete, and chargesheets have since been filed. The prosecution’s case predominantly rests on documentary records and electronic trails. Since these materials are already seized and in the safe custody of the investigating agency, the apprehension of tampering with evidence is substantially obliterated.”
Trial far from starting
The Court noted that charges are yet to be framed. Investigation against some accused is pending, two accused are absconding, and sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act for six other public servants came only on September 6, 2026. With 124 prosecution witnesses and thousands of pages of documents, it said the trial “is bound to be a protracted exercise.” It held:
“It is a well-settled postulate of criminal jurisprudence that pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention, particularly when the commencement and conclusion of the trial are not imminent. This Court must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when a trial cannot be reasonably concluded in the near future.”
Parity with co-accused
The Bench also took note that co-accused Arun Srivastava was granted bail by the High Court on June 1, 2026, and that the Supreme Court had on December 3, 2025 granted bail to former PHED Minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi in the corresponding money laundering case arising from the same FIR. Holding that further pre-trial custody would “serve no fruitful purpose,” it ordered both appellants released on bail on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court.
The appellants must join the investigation at the police station if called, as the probe against some accused is continuing, and must attend the trial diligently. The Trial Court is free to cancel bail for any default or breach of conditions.
No view on merits
The Bench made clear that it was “not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the appellants, or the evidentiary value of the records,” which are for the Trial Court to decide. The allegations against the appellants remain untested, and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why The Jal Jeevan Mission Bail Order Matters
The order applies the Supreme Court’s line that the seriousness of an economic offence does not by itself justify indefinite custody. Once investigation against an accused is complete, the evidence is largely documentary and already seized, and the trial is unlikely to start soon, continued detention begins to look like punishment before conviction.
It also shows how parity and delay work together in multi-accused corruption cases: bail to co-accused, including the alleged principal figure in the linked PMLA case, combined with pending sanctions and absconding accused, weighed decisively in favour of release.
Case Title: Sanjay Badaya v. State of Rajasthan, with Shubhanshu Dixit v. State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 15347 and 13461 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1065
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 29, 2026