Pre-trial detention cannot become punishment without trial: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention of a person accused of a crime cannot become punishment without trial [Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan].

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu observed that such indefinitely prolonged pretrial detention would undermine the undertrial’s right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"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," the Court held.

The Court made the observation in an October 16 order granting bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in a corruption case involving the alleged use of forged documents to secure contracts worth ₹979.45 crore under Rajasthan’s Jal Jeevan Mission.

The Court acknowleged that the allegations in this case were grave. However, it added that 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 Court observed.

The case arose from an anti-corruption bureau enquiry 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 purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited to participate in tenders between 2021 and 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the firms acted with public servants and private individuals to secure 104 work orders. An FIR was registered on October 30, 2024.

Joshi and Pathak were subsequently arrested. The Rajasthan High Court rejected their regular bail applications on August 13, 2026, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that allegations of financial irregularities and collusion in a public welfare project were serious. However, it found several circumstances favouring 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 found no need for further custodial interrogation or recovery.

The Bench also considered their periods of incarceration. 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 secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same underlying allegations, the Court added.

Turning to the likely duration of the trial, the Court took into account the voluminous record involving 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents spanning over 20,000 pages.

It 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, the Court noted.

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

The Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s order concerning Joshi and Pathak and directed their release on bail.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Joshi. Advocate Kaushal Sharma represented Pathak.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Additional Advocate General Padmesh Mishra appeared for the State.

[Read Order]