Supreme Court grants bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in Rs 979 crore Jal Jeevan Mission tender case

Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said gravity alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody where investigation is over, the evidence is documentary and the trial has not begun.

The Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau alleges that two tubewell firms used forged IRCON International completion certificates to win ₹979.45 crore of Jal Jeevan Mission contracts from the State's Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), with help from inside the department. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court granted bail to two of the accused, Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's refusal of 13 August 2026. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu called the allegations grave and said the State was justified in opposing bail. It held, however, that gravity alone cannot override every other consideration or justify indefinite detention before trial. The order is marked non-reportable.

The allegations

The ACB's Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, opened on 18 January 2024 into irregularities in PHED tenders under the Jal Jeevan Mission, led to FIR No. 245/2024 on 30 October 2024. It was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that between 2021 and 2023 two proprietorships, M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company of co-accused Mahesh Mittal and M/s Shree Shyam Tubewell Company of co-accused Padam Chand Jain, bid for 237 tenders, 68 and 169 respectively. They allegedly relied on forged work completion certificates and letters of acceptance said to be from IRCON. Using these, they became the lowest bidders and won 104 tenders: 31 worth ₹859.2 crore for the first firm and 73 worth ₹120.25 crore for the second. PHED officials and private individuals are alleged to have acted with them.

Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Joshi, and counsel Kaushal Sharma for Pathak. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra opposed bail for the State. The two appeals were heard together on 12 October 2026.

What the Court left open

The appellants raised several legal objections: that successive FIRs were not maintainable, that the prosecution amounted to double jeopardy, that Section 17A of the PC Act had been breached, and that Joshi's arrest was illegal. The bench declined to decide any of these. Because the appeals were only about bail, it would not hold a roving inquiry into the merits, and it left all those points to be raised before the appropriate forum.

Four reasons for bail

Investigation is complete. Chargesheet No. 80/2026 against Pathak was filed on 12 April 2026, and supplementary chargesheet No. 80-B/2026 against Joshi on 29 June 2026. The case rests mainly on documents and electronic records: tender files, minutes of the Bid Evaluation and Finance Committees, note-sheets, correspondence with IRCON, bank statements, forensic reports on seized phones, call records and intercepted conversations. All of this is with the investigating agency. Neither man needs to be questioned in custody, and the risk of tampering is largely removed.

Both are already on bail in parallel cases on the same facts. Joshi, about 72, had been in custody on this FIR since 7 May 2026. Before that, he spent more than seven months in custody in a money-laundering case under the PMLA on the same allegations, including a ₹50 lakh trail to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP. The Supreme Court released him in that case on 3 December 2025, and there was no suggestion that he misused his liberty. Pathak had been in custody since 18 February 2026. In the CBI case on the fabrication of the IRCON certificates, which covered fake email IDs, payments from M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and a staged verification at Hotel Woodlark in Kattappana, Kerala, the Special Judge (CBI) granted him bail on 27 January 2026. He is also on bail in the PMLA case.

The trial is far off. There are 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents running to 20,000 pages. Charges have not been framed. Investigation against some co-accused is still pending, and others are absconding despite arrest warrants. The Court repeated that prolonged pre-trial detention must not become punishment without trial, contrary to the right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21.

Co-accused are already out. The High Court granted bail on 1 June 2026 to Arun Srivastava, then Additional Chief Engineer. On 29 September 2026 the Supreme Court granted bail to Shubhanshu Dixit, then Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board and the PHED Finance Committee, and to Sanjay Badaya, described as Joshi's intermediary.

Order and conditions

The High Court's judgment was set aside so far as it concerned the two appellants. They are to be released, unless needed in another case, on bonds and sureties to the trial court's satisfaction. The conditions are:

• they must surrender their passports and not leave India without the trial court's permission;
• they must appear before the investigating officer when called, since investigation against others continues;
• they must not induce, threaten or make promises to witnesses or tamper with evidence; and
• they must attend every hearing unless exempted.

The trial court may cancel bail for any breach. The bench said its observations were confined to bail and expressed no view on the merits, on each accused's role or on the weight of the evidence. The appeals were allowed.