The Supreme Court recently observed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot become punishment without trial. It reiterated that an undertrial’s right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected even in cases involving grave allegations of financial impropriety.

The Bench made the observation while granting regular bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi, a former Congress minister, and Mukesh Pathak, who are accused in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in tenders worth hundreds of crores of rupees under the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan.

In an order dated October 16, the court acknowledged that the allegations in the case were grave. However, it said the seriousness of the allegations alone could not justify keeping an accused in custody indefinitely. “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 Bench observed.

The case arose from a 2024 Anti-Corruption Bureau inquiry into alleged irregularities in tenders issued by Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department. According to the prosecution, two firms: Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and Shree Shyam Tubewell Company, used fabricated work-completion certificates and letters of acceptance to participate in tenders between 2021 and 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the firms acted in collusion with public servants and private individuals to secure 104 work orders. An FIR was registered in October, 2024. Joshi and Pathak were subsequently arrested. The Rajasthan High Court rejected their regular bail applications in August 2026, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the allegations of financial irregularities and collusion in a public welfare project were serious. However, it identified several circumstances that favoured granting bail.

The court pointed out that the investigation against both appellants was complete and chargesheets had been filed. Since the documentary and electronic evidence had already been seized, the Bench said the risk of tampering with evidence was substantially reduced. It also found no need for further custodial interrogation or recovery.

The Bench considered the periods of incarceration of both accused. Joshi, aged about 72, had spent over five months in custody in the present case, while Pathak had been incarcerated for nearly eight months. Both had also secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same underlying allegations, the court noted.

The Bench further considered the likely duration of the trial. It took into account the voluminous record involving 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents spanning more than 20,000 pages. The court observed that charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not begun. Given the volume of evidence, the proceedings were likely to take considerable time, it noted.

The Bench also took into account that several co-accused had received bail or interim protection. Considering these circumstances together, the Supreme Court held that further incarceration of the appellants was neither warranted nor necessary.