The Supreme Court of India granted bail on Friday (October 16, 2026) to former Congress Minister Mahesh Joshi in connection with the alleged Jal Jeevan Mission scam, observing that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to “degenerate into punishment without trial” in breach of constitutional guarantees.
Accordingly, the Bench directed that both of them be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu also ordered the release of Mukesh Pathak, another accused in the case, setting aside an August 13 order of the Rajasthan High Court denying them regular bail. The Bench noted that the case involves 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses, and 20,000 pages of documents.
“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. The court noted that the investigation against both accused was complete and chargesheets had been filed. The prosecution’s case rests overwhelmingly on documentary and electronic evidence already in the investigating agency’s custody. The top court also imposed certain conditions on them, including that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
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 Bench said. With charges yet to be framed, it said the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. “Viewed in the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that further pre-trial incarceration of the appellants is neither warranted nor necessary, and that any legitimate apprehension of the prosecution can be adequately safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions”, the Bench said.
