The Supreme Court has granted bail in the Jal Jeevan Mission Tender Case to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, by an order dated October 16, 2026, has granted regular bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, both accused in a corruption case over alleged irregularities in tenders floated by the Public Health Engineering Department of Rajasthan under the Jal Jeevan Mission, and has set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order of August 13, 2026 that had refused them bail [Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan; Mukesh Pathak v. State of Rajasthan].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu allowed both appeals, which arose from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 15822 and 15862 of 2026 and were heard sequentially on October 12, 2026. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused remain presumed innocent.
How the case reached here
The case traces back to Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, registered on January 18, 2024 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, into alleged irregularities in tenders under the Jal Jeevan Mission. It led to FIR No. 245/2024, registered on October 30, 2024 under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, between 2021 and 2023 two proprietorship concerns, acting in concert with public servants and private individuals, took part in 237 tenders on the strength of forged work completion certificates and letters of acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited. It is alleged that the two firms emerged as lowest bidders and secured work orders in 104 tenders, valued together at Rs 979.45 crore. The Court recorded these as the prosecution’s allegations and did not test them.
Chargesheet No. 80/2026 was filed on April 12, 2026 against Pathak, followed by Supplementary Chargesheet No. 80-B/2026 on June 29, 2026 against Joshi. The High Court declined regular bail to both on August 13, 2026, which brought them to the Supreme Court.
Gravity of allegations is not the only test
The Court accepted that the State was justified in opposing bail in a case of this scale, but held that seriousness alone could not decide the matter.
“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 by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.”
The circumstances that tilted the balance
The Bench noted that investigation qua both appellants was complete and that the prosecution case rests overwhelmingly on documentary records and electronic trails, including tender files, bid evaluation minutes, correspondence with IRCON, bank statements, forensic reports of seized mobile devices, call detail records and transcripts of intercepted conversations, all already in the custody of the investigating agency. No further custodial interrogation or recovery was required, and the apprehension of tampering stood substantially obviated.
On custody, Joshi, a senior citizen aged about 72 years, had been in custody in this FIR since May 7, 2026, after earlier spending over seven months in custody in a connected money laundering case before this Court granted him regular bail on December 3, 2025. Pathak had been in continuous custody since February 18, 2026, for nearly eight months, and had already been granted regular bail on January 27, 2026 by the Special Judge (CBI) in a connected CBI case. Several co-accused, including a then Additional Chief Engineer and a then Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board, had also been granted bail or interim protection.
The Court also weighed the size of the record: 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 cited prosecution witnesses and 192 documents spread over 20,000 pages, with charges yet to be framed and the investigation against some co-accused still pending.
“As repeatedly emphasised by this Court, 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 guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Concluding that further pre-trial incarceration was “neither warranted nor necessary”, the Court held that any legitimate apprehension of the prosecution could be safeguarded by conditions.
The conditions
Both appellants are to be released on bail unless wanted in any other case, on furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. They must surrender their passports and not leave India without the trial court’s permission, appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate when called, refrain from inducing, threatening or influencing any person acquainted with the facts or tampering with evidence, and appear regularly on each date of hearing. The trial court may cancel bail on breach of any condition.
What the Court left open
The Court said it was not embarking on a roving inquiry into the merits and left open the appellants’ contentions on successive FIRs, double jeopardy, the alleged infraction of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the legality of Joshi’s arrest, to be raised before the appropriate forum. It clarified that its observations are confined to bail and are not an opinion on the roles attributed to the appellants or the probative value of the material.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms that bail in grave economic offences is not foreclosed by the seriousness of the charge. Once investigation is complete, evidence is largely documentary and in the agency’s custody, and a trial of this size is unlikely to end soon, continued custody begins to look like punishment before conviction, which Article 21 does not permit.
It also shows the weight the Court gave to parity and to bail already granted in connected prosecutions on the same facts, while leaving every question of guilt to the trial court.
Case Title: Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan; Mukesh Pathak v. State of Rajasthan [SLP (Crl.) Nos. 15822 and 15862 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal for Mahesh Chandra Joshi; Advocate Kaushal Sharma for Mukesh Pathak; Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju and Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra for the State of Rajasthan