Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application filed by Mahesh Joshi, a former Minister of the Public Health Engineering Department (‘PHED’) in bribery case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (‘PMLA’) in Jal Jeevan Mission scam, a Single-Judge Bench of Praveer Bhatnagar, J., dismissed the bail application. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the accused’s involvement in the crime and that the case did not meet the criteria for bail under the stringent provisions of the PMLA. The Court noted that the accused, as a minister, held a position of public trust and had a central role in orchestrating the scam. The Court emphasized that the accused’s responsibilities as a high-ranking government official were not comparable to those of the other co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Background
A case was filed against the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. He was appointed as the Minister of the Public Health Engineering Department (‘PHED’) in November 2021 and was accused of being involved in a money laundering scheme. The two main co-accused procured tenders in the PHED by using a forged IRCON certificate and bribing officials. They had been securing these tenders since 2019. The accused received a bribe of Rs. 2.1 crore, and Rs. 50 lakhs of this amount were credited to his son’s firm.
The accused’s name did not appear in the charge sheet previously for offence against the other co-accused or in the Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’). However, subsequent FIRs concerning the forgery of IRCON certificates were filed against the accused and the other co-accused. An earlier FIR from 2022 on similar allegations had resulted in a closure report from the police. The ECIR was registered in 2022, and multiple summons were issued to the accused. Allegations were made that the accused’s role was central in orchestrating and facilitating the entire scam by granting undue favors to co-accused in securing PHED tenders. The accused filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that it is a trite law that the court must take into consideration the twin conditions outlined in Section 45 of the PMLA when reviewing a bail application. Adhering to the strict requirements of Section 45 is essential to achieve the objectives of the PMLA. However, the constitutional court has the authority to grant bail to the accused under the PMLA in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, provided that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant for the same.
The Court further noted that the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible in court as PMLA investigating officers are not classified as police officers, and hence, the restrictions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 do not apply. These statements, however, are typically weak on their own and require corroboration with additional evidence. The evidential value of a Section 50 statement is tied to the legality of the investigation and can be considered inadmissible if the accused are not properly informed of their rights. Proceedings under Section 50(2) and (3) are considered judicial proceedings, making individuals liable for perjury or obstruction if they provide false information. Once recorded, a statement is presumed to be true unless disproved, placing a reverse burden of proof on the accused under Section 24 of the PMLA. Courts may use portions of these statements from various individuals to establish guilt, while not relying solely on statements that may exonerate the accused.
The Court noted the allegations of corruption and money laundering against the accused in relation to the Jal Jeevan Mission. The prosecution’s case is built on the close ties between the accused and the co-accused who is alleged to have been a key intermediary for bribes. Statements from multiple co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA established this connection. While the full legal weight of these statements was to be determined at trial, they could be considered significant for the present bail application. The Court noted that the evidence presented suggested the accused’s involvement in the offence and there was nothing at this stage to show that the accused did not commit the crime. A close associate of the accused allegedly received bribes from the co-accused and this connection raised substantial concerns regarding the accused’s integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings.
The Court rejected the claim that the alleged corrupt activities occurred before the accused became a minister, stating that this does not weaken the evidence of a broader corruption network. The Court also found the accused’s claims regarding a lack of a charge sheet and contradictions in statements to be unconvincing. Additionally, the Court observed that the case does not qualify for bail under the proviso of Section 45(1) of the PMLA, as the proceeds of the crime exceeded the Rs. 1 crore threshold. Even if the amount were lower, the Court noted it would not exercise its discretion to grant bail given the strong evidence against the accused.
The Court also rejected the argument of principle of equality, stating that the accused, as a minister, held a position of public trust and had a central role in orchestrating the scam. The Court emphasized that the accused’s responsibilities as a high-ranking government official were not comparable to those of the other co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
The Court observed that,
“the expression ‘A fence eating the crop’ serves as a concerning caution in this context. It illustrates that the accused, in a position of power and responsibility, has not upheld the integrity and trust that are vital for someone in a high-ranking governmental role responsible for the diligent execution of public duties. The criminal misconduct attributed to the accused represents a grave breach of duty that is both disconcerting and intolerable in the public sphere.”
The Court rejected the bail application of the accused.
[Mahesh Joshi v. Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8007/2025, decided on 26-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by Snehdeep Khayalia, and Savita Nathawat, Advocates
For the Respondents: Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. for ED, Rajat Sharma, Ashutosh Ranga, Ajay Singh, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
