The Supreme Court on Tuesday said pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention, particularly when commencement and conclusion of the trial were not imminent.
The observation came from a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu while granting bail to two accused in a 2024 case relating to alleged financial irregularities within the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) in Rajasthan.
The apex court noted that proceedings in the case were at a nascent stage and bearing in mind the sheer volume of evidence that must be led to prove the charges, the trial was bound to be a protracted exercise.
"It is a well-settled postulate of criminal jurisprudence that pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention, particularly when the commencement and conclusion of the trial are not imminent," it said.
"This court must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when a trial cannot be reasonably concluded in the near future," the bench said.
The top court passed the order on two separate petitions filed by Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit who had challenged the Rajasthan High Court orders dismissing their applications seeking regular bail in the case.
The bench noted that the alleged anomalies in the case pertain to execution of "Jal Jeevan Mission", an ambitious joint initiative of the central and state governments intended to provide functional household tap connections for safe and adequate drinking water.
It noted that Dixit had served as the secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board during the relevant period (December 30, 2022 to February 13, 2024).
It said that by virtue of this office, he concurrently functioned as the de facto secretary of the PHED Finance Committee.
The bench noted that Badaya, a private individual, was portrayed by the prosecution as a "central intermediary and broker acting on behalf of the then cabinet minister of the PHED, Mahesh Chandra Joshi".
"While we have no hesitation to agree with counsel for the state that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, and the state is justified in opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the present appellants, however, sight of the other features of the present case cannot be lost," it said.
The top court noted that investigation regarding both the appellants was complete, chargesheets were filed and the prosecution's case predominantly rests on documentary records and electronic trails.
"Since these materials are already seized and in the safe custody of the investigating agency, the apprehension of tampering with evidence is substantially obliterated," the bench said.
It said the materials to be placed before the trial court were voluminous and admittedly, the charges were yet to be framed and trial was yet to commence.
The bench noted that investigation against some of the accused was still pending and two accused were absconding.
The bench said some co-accused, whose alleged roles would ultimately be considered at the trial, have already been granted bail or protection.
"Notably, the principal political executive, the then PHED minister, Mahesh Chandra Joshi, has been granted bail in the corresponding PMLA offence arising out of the present FIR, by this court vide order dated December 3, 2025," it said.
While allowing the appeals, the bench set aside the high court orders of June 1 and August 13 respectively.
"Appellants – Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit – shall be released on bail in connection with the present case, unless required in any other case, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit and proper to impose," it said.
Noting that since the investigation was yet to conclude against some accused, the bench directed that if the investigating officer calls upon the appellants to join the probe, they shall do so by attending at the police station.
It said the appellants shall diligently participate in the trial and shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless exempted.
"Should there be any default in their appearance without justifiable cause, or any infraction of the bail conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the defaulting appellant(s) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law," the bench said.
It made clear that the apex court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the specific roles attributed to the appellants or the evidentiary value of the records.
(With inputs from PTI)
