Judicature For Rajasthan Bench High Court · 2026

: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vijay Yadav, AGA Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

1. Date of conclusion of arguments

27.05.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved

27.05.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full

4. Date of pronouncement

01.06.2026

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner Shubhanshu Dixit S/o Shri Mukut Mohan Dixit, under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, who was arrested by Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ACB’) in connection with the FIR [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026] bearing No.245/2024 dated 30.10.2024 registered at Police Station Pradhan Arakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(C), 9, 10, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2), 12 of Prevention of Corruption, (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B of IPC, 1860. The petitioner, after being arrested, moved bail application before the learned trial Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 18.02.2026.

2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner at the time of arrest was posted and working as Secretary, Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management Board (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RWSSMB’). Learned counsel further submitted that in the impugned FIR, as registered by the ACB, it has been alleged that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused persons, was involved in the allegedly Jal Jeevan Mission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JJM’) scam occurred in the Public Health and Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as 'PHED').

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the complete case, as set up by the ACB, is that total 104 tenders were sanctioned by the PHED, out of which, in respect of only 7 tenders, complaints were received regarding corruption and the petitioner, being part of the Finance Committee which examined the financial bids, was said to be involved in manipulative processing of the said tenders. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was simply Secretary of RWSSMB and was de facto Secretary of financial Committee. He was nowhere involved in any decision making process and further has no authority to take any final decision in [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026] approval of tenders. The allegations of respondent-ACB is that two firms, namely, M/s Ganpati Tubewell Company and M/s Shyam Tubewell Company, which were later on blacklisted by the Department, participated in the tender process under JJM by submitting certain fake experience certificates and of work performance of PSU IRCON International Limited and despite receiving serious complaints from person namely, Padam Singh on

16.02.2023 and legal notices form Adv. Mahesh Kalwania, no serious action was taken by him and tenders were processed.

4. Learned counsel specifically pointed out that the petitioner never received any complaints from person Padam Singh and/or Mr. Mahesh Kalwania and, therefore, the same were never within his knowledge. The petitioner just participated in the meeting of Finance Committee held in respect of certain tenders, more specifically NIT No.42 and 46. The said Committee, being headed by the Additional Chief Secretary, PHED took the decision in the meetings dated 02.05.2023 and 09.05.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the Department on receiving the complaints, as mentioned above, sent Mr. Vishal Saxena, senior most Executive Engineer to Kerala for verification of those certificates. After physically visiting the said State, he submitted the positive report regarding the legitimacy of the said certificates to the higher officials of the Department. Just being a part of the said Finance Committee as found in respect of the aforementioned tenders under question in the FIR, he cannot be said to be involved in any manner in the JJM scam, as alleged by the respondent-ACB. [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026]

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not directly connected with the Department, but just being the de facto Secretary of the Finance Committee, he participated in the meetings. Learned counsel submitted that later on all the 7 tenders were canceled on the basis of the report of the Committee as formed by the Department in August, 2023 and, therefore, no financial loss was caused to the State and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner took any kind of bribe or acted unfairly in the process of those tenders, being the member of the Finance Committee, as mentioned above. He further submitted that once the senior most Executive Engineer of PHED has done a verification after physical visit, there was no reason for him to doubt anything in his capacity.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of the same incident multiple FIRs have been registered, one was registered by the Department itself bearing No.542/2023 dated

03.10.2023 (by PHED Department), another by CBI bearing No. RC2172024A0008 dated 03.05.2024, and the third one bearing No.245/2024 in which the petitioner has been made an accused. Mr. Pankaj Gupta relied upon the judgment of T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2001(6) SCC 181 and other judgments. He further submitted that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same incident. He, therefore, submitted that once the FIR was registered in the year 2023 itself, there could not be subsequent FIRs for the same incident in terms of above mentioned law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that in the FIR bearing No.245/2024, as impugned in the present bail application, [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026] respondent-ACB, after conducting the investigation has filed the charge-sheet running into almost 16,000 pages; no further recovery is required to be made from the petitioner; no custodial interrogation is required as he is already behind the bars since

17.02.2026; is more than 58 years of age, there is no likelihood of him not co-operating and participating in any further investigation, if at all required by the ACB, or of not participating in the trial. In view of the above, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Per Contra, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG along-with Mr. Vijay Yadav, Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application as filed by the petitioner. Both the learned counsel submitted that the complete scam as noticed by ACB in PHED is under investigation and up till now, out of approximately 104 tenders, only 7 have been investigated. The petitioner was member of the Finance Committee which approved the tenders despite being aware of the fact that serious complaints were received from one person namely, Padam Singh, on 16.02.2023 and Adv. Mahesh Kalwania through his legal notices dated

16.03.2023 and 20.03.2024 on behalf of his client addressed to all the responsible officials in the Department.

9. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submitted that by the above complaint and legal notices it was informed to the Department in advance, much before conducting the meeting of the Finance Committee, of which the petitioner was the active and responsible member, regarding use of fake certificates by the aforementioned two firms for procuring tenders under JJM. Once the Department [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026] received the serious complaints, which later on also stood verified, it led to the cancellation of all tenders by PHED in August, 2023, this itself shows that the complaints were genuine yet intentionally ignored and tenders were processed illegally.

10. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submitted that it is not just one person, but other officers also, as named in the FIR by the ACB, which itself shows that various officers at various levels, who were part of the different committees were responsible from opening of the bid for technical evaluation, financial evaluation, etc. of the tenders. Their roles are very clear as per the charge- sheet and, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail.

11. As far as multiple FIRs are concerned, learned GA-cum-AAG submitted petitioner is not accused in the FIR registered by the CBI and as far as the FIR lodged by the Department is concerned, same has been merged with the FIR registered by the ACB, bearing No.245/2024 impugned in the present bail application. Therefore, there are no multiple FIRs. He further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been filed, but none of the persons, who have been named in the FIR have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the present petitioner also does not deserves to be enlarged on bail and bail application deserves to be dismissed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Gupta at length and noted that the ACB registered FIR bearing No.245/2024 dated 30.10.2024. Out of approximately 104 tenders, only 7 have been investigated up till now. The petitioner was Secretary, RWSSMB and de facto Secretary of the Finance [2026:RJ-JP:22764] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-3183/2026] Committee and thus, participated in the tender process in respect of the NIT No.42 and 46 in the meetings which took place on

02.05.2023 and 09.05.2023 and approved the same despite the fact that serious complaints in regard to the conduct of the two firms, namely, M/s Ganpati Tubewell Company and M/s Shyam Tubewell Company were received in February and March, 2023.

14. The fact that the department itself cancelled the tenders in August, 2023, because of the serious corruption as noted in the entire tender process, leaves no doubt about the fact that the petitioner was an active and responsible member of the Committee in the entire decision making process. This Court further is of the view that charge-sheet has been filed in respect of only 7 tenders and the allegations are in respect of multiple tenders as informed by learned GA-cum-AAG.

15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the allegations as pointed out, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail at this stage.

16. In view of the above, this bail application is dismissed. /Dushyant (RAVI CHIRANIA),J