The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted regular bail to Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit, two accused in the alleged irregularities linked to the Jal Jeevan Mission in Rajasthan. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the Rajasthan High Court orders of 1 June 2026 and 13 August 2026, which had refused them bail.
Background
The matter began with Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024, which led to FIR No. 245/2024 at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, on 30 October 2024. It invokes provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, two private contracting firms, allegedly with the help of public servants and intermediaries, obtained forged work-experience and completion certificates in the name of IRCON International Limited. On that basis, they allegedly secured about 104 tenders worth roughly Rs. 979.45 crore in the Public Health Engineering Department.
A chargesheet was filed on 12 April 2026, followed by a supplementary one on 29 June 2026. The prosecution plans to examine 124 witnesses.
Shubhanshu Dixit, a public servant, was Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board. The prosecution alleges he did not act on complaints about the certificates and took part in Finance Committee meetings where the firms' bids were approved. He was arrested on 17 February 2026.
Sanjay Badaya, a private individual, is described as an intermediary acting for the then PHED Minister, Mahesh Chandra Joshi. He is alleged to have collected cash from contractors and influenced departmental work. He was arrested on 11 May 2026.
The Court said it was not examining the correctness of the allegations at this stage. It agreed that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, but said other features of the case could not be ignored. The Bench observed:
"While we have no hesitation to agree with learned 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. The investigation qua the present appellants is complete, and chargesheets have since been filed. 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 Court noted that charges are yet to be framed. Investigation against some accused is pending, two accused are absconding, and sanction for prosecuting six other public servants was granted only on 6 September 2026. Given the volume of evidence, it said the trial is bound to be long. It added:
"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. 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 also took note that co-accused Arun Srivastava had been granted bail by the High Court on 1 June 2026, and that Mahesh Chandra Joshi had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 3 December 2025 in the related money laundering case.
Allowing both appeals, the Court directed that the appellants be released on bail, subject to bail bonds and conditions set by the Trial Court. They must join the investigation if called and attend all trial dates unless exempted. The Trial Court may cancel bail for default or breach of conditions.
The Court clarified that its observations do not reflect on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Sanjay Badaya, Shubhanshu Dixit v. State of Rajasthan
