Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants Sanjay Badaya (private individual) and Shubhanshu Dixit (former Secretary, Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board) vs. State of Rajasthan.
  • Nature of proceedings: Criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No. … of 2026) arising from SLP (CrL.) No. 15347/2026 and SLP (CrL.) No. 13461/2026, challenging the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur’s dismissal of their regular bail applications dated 1 June 2026 and 13 August 2026 respectively.
  • Background of the dispute: The prosecution’s case stems from Preliminary Enquiry No. 06/2024 (dated 18 January 2024) and FIR No. 245/2024 (dated 30 October 2024) lodged at the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. The FIR alleges offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7(c), 9, 10, 13(1)(a) read with 13(2), 12) and the Indian Penal Code (Sections 409, 466‑468, 471, 477‑A, 120‑B).
  • Alleged wrongdoing: The case concerns a large‑scale conspiracy and financial irregularities in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Rajasthan, linked to the “Jal Jeevan Mission”. Two private contractors – M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company (proprietorship of Mr Mahesh Mittal) and M/s Shri Shyam Tubewell Company (proprietorship of Mr Padam Chand Jain) – allegedly used forged work‑experience and completion certificates purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited to obtain eligibility and were awarded work orders for approximately 104 tenders, amounting to Rs 979.45 crore, causing massive loss to the State exchequer.
  • Chargesheets: ACB filed Chargesheet No. 80/2026 (dated 12 April 2026) and Supplementary Chargesheet No. 80‑B/2026 (dated 29 June 2026). The prosecution proposes examination of 124 witnesses and reliance on thousands of pages of documentary evidence.
  • Specific allegations against each appellant:
  • Shubhanshu Dixit – As Secretary of RWSSMB and de‑facto Secretary of the PHED Finance Committee (30 Dec 2022 to 13 Feb 2024), he allegedly ignored whistle‑blower complaints (Mr Padam Singh, 14 & 16 Feb 2023; Mr Mahesh Kalwania, 16 & 20 Mar 2023) about forged IRCON certificates, suppressed them, participated in Finance Committee meetings approving tainted bids, and issued minutes facilitating award of tenders. Arrested on 17 Feb 2026.
  • Sanjay Badaya – Described as a central intermediary and broker for the then PHED Cabinet Minister (Mr Mahesh Chandra Joshi). Allegedly influenced tender file movement, vigilance inquiries, and engineer postings, collected cash bribes from the contractors, routed the amounts through relatives’ bank accounts to M/s Sumangalam Landmark LLP (owned by the minister’s son). Arrested on 11 May 2026.
  • Procedural posture: The Court notes that the investigation is complete, chargesheets filed, and evidence is in safe custody, eliminating risk of tampering. Trial is at a nascent stage; charges not yet framed; some co‑accused are absconding; sanction under Section 19 of the PoC Act granted on 6 Sept 2026 for six other public‑servant co‑accused.
  • Relevant precedents & considerations: The Court emphasizes that pre‑trial incarceration should not become punitive detention when trial is not imminent, and notes that other co‑accused (e.g., Mr Arun Srivastava, former PHED Minister Mahesh Chandra Joshi) have already been granted bail.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders dated 1 June 2026 and 13 August 2026.
  • Both appellants, Sanjay Badaya and Shubhanshu Dixit, are released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds satisfactory to the Trial Court and complying with any additional terms the Trial Court may impose.
  • The appellants must attend the trial as directed and cooperate with the investigating officer if called upon.
  • The Court reserves the right to cancel bail for any default or breach of conditions.

Topics: Bail, Corruption