Supreme Court Grants Bail to Rajasthan PHED Scam Accused Under Article 21
_223491298.jpg)
In a significant ruling reaffirming the constitutional sanctity of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a person's incarceration cannot be continued as a punitive measure before charges are proven at trial. Delivering a strongly worded verdict on Tuesday, September 29, the apex court underlined that prolonged custody without any reasonable expectation of a speedy commencement or conclusion of trial directly infringes upon the fundamental right to life and liberty. A division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu emphasized that when a trial is bound to be protracted, judicial intervention becomes imperative to safeguard constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Protection Under Article 21: Liberty Cannot Be Compromised
The apex court bench highlighted that treating custodial remand as an advance sentence runs contrary to established criminal jurisprudence:
Settled Legal Principle: The bench reiterated the foundational doctrine of Indian criminal law that detention prior to conviction cannot be used as a tool of punishment or retribution against an undertrial.
Lengthy Trial Foreseen: The Supreme Court noted that proceedings in the 2024 case remain in their nascent stages. Given the voluminous documentary evidence and the extensive list of witnesses required to substantiate the prosecution's allegations, the trial will inevitably consume considerable time.
Mandatory Judicial Intervention: Emphasizing judicial duty, the judges observed that where speedy justice is not practically viable in the near future, superior courts must step in to protect the liberty of the accused rather than allowing indefinite pretrial incarceration.
Relief for Rajasthan PHED Irregularities Accused After High Court Rebuff
The landmark order was delivered on separate criminal appeals filed by Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit, who had approached the apex court challenging earlier orders of the Rajasthan High Court that had rejected their regular bail petitions:
Alleged Financial Irregularities: Both petitioners are accused in a 2024 case involving alleged financial misappropriation and tender irregularities within the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) of Rajasthan.
Investigation Concluded: The top court took judicial note of the fact that the probe against both individuals stands completed, with the investigating agency having already submitted the formal charge sheet before the trial court.
No Threat of Evidence Tampering: Because the prosecution's narrative rests almost entirely on seized departmental documents, financial transaction records, and preserved electronic evidence, the bench concluded there was no plausible risk of the accused tampering with crucial material or obstructing justice while out on bail.
Parity Principle Upheld: Bail Extended Along Lines of Co-Accused
The Supreme Court also applied the principle of parity, noting that key co-accused in the broader controversy had already secured release from custody:
Co-Accused on Bail: The bench observed that multiple co-accused persons connected to the wider investigation have previously been enlarged on bail by competent judicial forums.
Relief for Former Minister: Notably, former Rajasthan PHED Minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi had already been granted bail in the parallel case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Clear Grounds for Release: Finding no justifiable ground to treat Badaya and Dixit differently, the bench set aside the High Court's refusal and directed their immediate release on regular bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions imposed by the trial court.
_1298864626_351x234.jpg)
_223491298_351x234.jpg)
_746335804_351x234.jpg)
_749420033_351x234.jpg)