Today, On 3rd December, Supreme Court granted bail to former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi after he spent nearly seven months in custody in the PHED money laundering case. The Bench, hearing his special leave petition, found grounds to set-aside earlier bail refusals.
The Supreme Court granted bail to former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi, who had been in custody for nearly seven months due to a money laundering case linked to an alleged scam involving the Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED).
The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustin George Masih, while hearing Joshi’s special leave petition that contested prior bail denials under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Joshi, who previously managed the PHED portfolio in Rajasthan, has been accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of participating in a money laundering operation related to supposed misconduct within the department.
He has consistently refuted these allegations. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Advocate Vivek Jain represented Joshi, arguing that his lengthy detention without trial justified releasing him on bail.
In his special leave petition to the Supreme Court, Joshi challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment from August 26, 2025, which denied him regular bail. He contended that the High Court neglected to acknowledge that all co-accused individuals in the case had been granted bail.
The petition highlighted several undisputed facts, including:
- a) the complaint has already been filed;
- b) there is little prospect for the trial to begin soon;
- c) the vast amount of documentary evidence diminishes any risk of tampering.
According to the allegations, Joshi, while serving as the PHED Minister, collaborated with co-accused Sanjay Badaya to solicit bribes in exchange for tenders awarded to M/s Shri Ganapati Tubewell and M/s Shri Shyam Tubewell for NIT No. 6-7/2022-23. The ED claimed that a deposit of Rs. 50 lakh was made into the account of M/S Sumangalam Landmark LLP, a firm run by Joshi’s son.
However, Joshi’s plea stated that this amount was actually a friendly loan and had been fully repaid before the FIR related to the primary offense was registered.
The plea insisted that this sum should not be classified as a bribe, asserting that there are no substantial allegations or evidence against Joshi.
The SLP also pointed out that, during his tenure as PHED Minister, the co-accused firms were already managing other tenders within the department. When the irregularities were identified, Joshi took appropriate measures, launching inquiries and enforcing strict actions against the culpable firms.
The petition noted that there are 19 accused persons, with 66 individuals listed as witnesses and 184 documents totaling 14,652 pages, concluding that the trial is unlikely to commence, let alone conclude, anytime soon. It emphasized the principle that “Bail is rule and Jail is exception.”
Additionally, the SLP referenced the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court underscored the critical nature of the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty, asserting that excessive detention without timely trial progression infringes upon Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court reiterated that custodial detention must not be punitive; rather, its only purpose should be to secure the accused’s appearance at trial.
Case Title: Sh. Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement