Jaipur, June 9 (IANS) Former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi suffered a setback after a special court dismissed his plea seeking release on the grounds that his arrest in a corruption case related to the Jal Jeevan Mission scam was unlawful.

The Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act cases ruled that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had substantially complied with constitutional safeguards and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) during the arrest. The court observed that Joshi’s family members had been informed about the arrest in a timely manner through both verbal and electronic communication, and therefore, the arrest could not be considered illegal.

Counsel for Joshi argued that when he was arrested on May 7 and produced before the court for a five-day police remand, mandatory legal procedures were not followed. The defence contended that, in line with the Supreme Court’s directions in Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, neither a written notice stating the grounds of arrest nor an acknowledgment of such notice was provided to Joshi’s family members or legal counsel before remand was sought. On this basis, the defence maintained that the arrest was unlawful and that Joshi should be released immediately.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Manjula Jain submitted that Additional Superintendent of Police Bhupendra Singh and his team had reached Joshi’s residence with the arrest order. According to the prosecution, Joshi’s son Rohit Joshi, daughter-in-law, and elder sister were present at the residence and were informed about the action after officers identified themselves and explained the purpose of their visit.

The prosecution further stated that the investigation team allowed the former minister time to complete his morning routine before taking him to the ACB headquarters, where he was formally arrested. Jain told the court that information regarding the arrest was first conveyed by phone and later by WhatsApp to Rohit Joshi. Additional WhatsApp calls were reportedly made while Joshi was being taken to court and after he arrived there. Screenshots of these communications were submitted as evidence.

In his order, Special Judge Rajesh Kumar Dadiya noted that the primary purpose of Section 48 of the BNSS is to protect an accused person’s right to legal defence. The court observed that when the remand application was taken up, Joshi’s lawyers were already present and actively argued the matter. This, the judge said, demonstrated that family members and legal representatives had been informed in sufficient time, fulfilling the intent of the law. Consequently, the court dismissed Joshi’s application challenging the legality of his arrest.

–IANS

arc/dan