Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Ex-Minister Accused Of Taking ₹2 Crore Bribe To Award Illegal Tenders Under Jal Jeevan Mission
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress leader and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of illegal tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving "bribe" of Rs. 2 Crores for the same as well as laundering funds. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that Joshi was "prima...
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Congress leader and former Minister for Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Mahesh Joshi booked in a PMLA case for allegedly colluding to facilitate grant of illegal tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission and receiving "bribe" of Rs. 2 Crores for the same as well as laundering funds.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that Joshi was "prima facie" involved in money laundering of the proceeds acquired through the illegal grant of tenders to co-accused Mahesh Mittal and Padam Chand, amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, and siphoning off approximately Rs. 2 crores.
ED claimed that statements of co-accused along with chargesheet in predicate offence substantiate that tenders were procured using fake certificates and bribes were both offered and received by the petitioner's close associate Sanjay Badaya.
ED said that further probe along with statements from other individuals validates that Sanjay Badaya was a close associate of Joshi and was actively involved in siphoning off amounts received from Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal.
Badaya, received a substantial commission from these individuals for both himself and Joshi, transferring the funds through intermediaries into the account of a firm owned by Joshi's son.
It was argued that Rs. 5.40 crores was received through Badaya out of which the Joshi allegedly received Rs. 2.01 crores.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar perused the evidence submitted on records by the investigating officers, and opined that the evidence clearly demonstrated Joshi's involvement in the alleged offence.
"The investigation into the corruption case has revealed significant misconduct involving co-accused Padam Chand and Mahesh Mittal, who are alleged to have secured government tenders through unethical and corrupt practices. It has come to light that a close associate of the petitioner, Sanjay Badaya, was implicated in receiving bribes from contractors, which facilitated the manipulation of official assignments to favour certain individuals or entities. This connection raises substantial concerns regarding the petitioner's integrity and involvement in these corrupt dealings".
The court also said that the timeline of the alleged corrupt acts does not lessen the links drawn between Joshi and the co-accused, as the accumulation of evidence indicates a network of corruption.
It further said,
“Additionally, the expression “A fence eating the crop” serves as a concerning caution in this context.It illustrates that the petitioner, 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 petitioner represents a grave breach of duty that is both disconcerting and intolerable in the public sphere.”
The court said that the statements made by Joshi and his son recorded under Section 50 PMLA, fail to clarify the substantial amount received in the account. It said that Joshi's defence that the credited amount in the firm is a loan "lacks valid proof" and is insufficient to support such claim.
"It is hard to believe that an unknown individual or firm would provide such a huge amount to the firm without any documentation or legitimate reason," the court added.
While perusing the evidence, the Court underscored the nuances of statements made under Section 50 of PMLA in front of the investigating officers, and held that, the restrictions imposed on admissibility of confessions made to police officers did not apply to such statements.
However, statements made during custody under Section 50, PMLA, required thorough scrutiny, and they could be considered inadmissible against the accused, if individuals were not property informed of their rights. Hence, the evidential value of these statements relied on the legality of the investigation.
Further, it was held that once the statement was recorded under the section, it was presumed to be true unless proven otherwise, and such burden was on the accused.
“Therefore, statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA from the alleged culprits by the Enforcement Agency are utilized to discredit and contradict their defences, if any The court doesn't need to accept all statements while determining the culpability of the individual involved in the crime. The court may rely on portions of these statements from various wrongdoers to establish their guilt.”
Hence, though section 50 statements were admissible in evidence, their impact was not absolute and the prosecution must provide corroborating evidence and demonstrate that the investigation followed legal protocols to effectively use these statements to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this background, when the evidence on record was assessed by the Court in a prima facie manner, it was opined that at first glance, collusion between Joshi and other co-accused was sufficiently established.
The Court further stated that in light of such evidence, Joshi's arguments by the petitioner did not effectively undermined the his connection to the alleged criminal activities.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Title: Mahesh Joshi v Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 290