BREAKING| PHED Scam: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former Rajasthan Minister Mahesh Joshi

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustin George Masih delivered the verdict while hearing Joshi’s special leave petition challenging the orders denying him bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Joshi, who earlier headed the PHED portfolio in the Rajasthan government, has been accused by the ED of involvement in a laundering network tied to alleged irregularities in the department. He has consistently denied the allegations.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, along with Advocate Vivek Jain, appeared for Joshi and had argued that the prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial warranted relief.

The Supreme Court has been told that in the impugned judgment High Court failed to consider the following undisputed facts- a) that the complaint stands already filed b) there is no likelihood of the trial to even commence in the near future c) large quantity of evidence which documentary in nature, hence no apprehension of tampering.

As per allegations, Joshi while acting as the PHED Minister colluded with co-accused Sanjay Badaya and collected bribe money in return of tenders to M/s Shri Ganapati Tubewell and M/s Shri Shyam Tubewell for NIT No. 6-7 /2022-23.

On the allegations made by ED that a deposit of Rs. 50 Lakh was into the account of M/S Sumangalam Landmark LLP (firm owned and run by Joshi's son), it has been submitted that as per the bank statements of Sumangalam Landmark LLP, the said amount was raised as a friendly loan and the entire amount stands returned to the concerned persons even before the registration of FIR in the predicate offence. "This amount thus cannot be treated as bribe and hence there exist no proceeds of crime in the present case. There is no other amount for which any substantial allegation based on any evidence that is alleged against the Petitioner", the plea submits.

The SLP stated that when the petitioner held the office as the Minister of PHED (Public Health and Engineering Department), the co-accused firms were already holding other tenders in the department and once irregularities came to the notice of the department, following the due process, the petitioner himself initiated inquiries and subsequent stern actions of blacklisting were taken against the erring firms.

"Till date there are 19 accused persons, 66 persons have been arrayed as witnesses and there are 184 documents running into 14,652 pages and there is no likelihood of the trial to begin, let alone concluding", the petitioner has stated while highlighting the principle of "Bail is rule and Jail is exception".

The SLP further relied on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty, holding that prolonged incarceration without timely progression of trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court had further noted that custodial detention should not be punitive; rather, its sole purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused.

Case Title: Sh. Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement

Pronouncement Date: December 3, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih