Sanjay Badaya v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1065
Supreme Court order granting regular bail to two individuals—Shubhanshu Dixit (a former public official) and Sanjay Badaya (a private intermediary)—who were arrested in connection with a major corruption and forgery scandal in Rajasthan involving the Jal Jeevan Mission, noting that since the investigation against them is complete and the trial is expected to take a long time due to voluminous records and pending procedures, keeping them in pre-trial custody would serve no useful purpose.
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that pre-trial detention cannot be used as a form of punishment, ruling that when an investigation is already complete, the evidence is safely secured in documents, and the trial is bound to be lengthy with no immediate prospect of concluding, an accused person’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 takes precedence and justifies granting them regular bail.
The case stems from a massive financial scam in Rajasthan involving the “Jal Jeevan Mission,” where two private contracting firms allegedly used forged work-experience certificates from IRCON to illegally secure about 104 tenders worth around Rs. 979.45 crore. Following an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) investigation and the filing of chargesheets, the appellants—Shubhanshu Dixit, a public servant accused of suppressing whistleblower complaints and helping approve the bids, and Sanjay Badaya, an intermediary accused of collecting bribes—were arrested and had their regular bail applications rejected by the Rajasthan High Court.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to grant bail. The Supreme Court noted that while economic offences must be handled seriously, the investigation against the appellants was already complete, chargesheets had been filed, and the key evidence consisted of securely seized documents and electronic trails, meaning there was no risk of evidence tampering.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants are entitled to regular bail because the investigation against them is complete, chargesheets have been filed, and the primary evidence consists of securely seized documents, removing any risk of tampering. Furthermore, given the voluminous evidence, pending co-accused proceedings, and the fact that the trial is bound to be a protracted exercise with no imminent conclusion, the Court ruled that pre-trial incarceration cannot be used as punitive detention and ordered their release subject to trial court conditions.