The Supreme Court has observed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial, reiterating that an undertrial's right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected even in cases involving grave allegations of financial impropriety.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while granting regular bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi (former Congress Minister) and Mukesh Pathak, accused in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in tenders worth hundreds of crores of rupees under the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan.

The Court observed that although allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion in the implementation of a public welfare project warranted serious scrutiny, the gravity of the allegations could not, by itself, eclipse other considerations governing bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.

"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 observed.

“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. 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.

The bench noted that the investigation against both accused had been completed and the chargesheets had been filed. The prosecution case was based predominantly on documentary records and electronic evidence, including tender files, official correspondence, bank statements, forensic reports of seized mobile devices and intercepted conversations, all of which were already in the custody of the investigating agency.

It held that no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required from the appellants and that the apprehension of tampering with documentary or electronic evidence stood substantially obviated.

The Court also took note of the period of incarceration undergone by the accused. Joshi, a senior citizen aged about 72 years, had remained in custody in the case since May 7, 2026, for over five months. Pathak had been in continuous custody since February 18, 2026, for nearly eight months.

Another significant consideration was the likely duration of the trial. The case involved 22 accused persons, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents spread across 20,000 pages. The Court noted that charges had not yet been framed and the trial was yet to commence. Investigation into the alleged involvement of some co-accused was also pending, while several other accused against whom arrest warrants had been issued remained absconding.

Having regard to the volume of evidence and the circumstances of the case, the Court observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

The bench further noted that both appellants had secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same factual allegations and that several co-accused in the present case had also been granted bail or interim protection.

"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 Court held.