MGNREGA ‘scam’: Gujarat HC rejects Congress leader Hira Jotva’s revision plea against bail cancellation

The case pertains to an FIR registered at the Bharuch A-Division police station in May 2025, lodged by the assistant MGNREGA account officer P U Chaudhary of the Bharuch District Rural Development Authority against Veraval-based Jalaram Enterprises, owned by Piyush Nukani, and Murlidhar Enterprises by Jodha Sabhad—both companies allegedly linked to Jotva. Nine accused, including Jotva, Digvijay, Nukani, and Sabhad, have been arrested in the case.

Advocates appearing for the Jotvas said that Hira and Digvijay “are victims of political vendetta, being of opposite faction” and also submitted that in a government scheme such as MGNREGA, there are “multiple layers of scrutiny at different administrative levels and hence, it is highly improbable and practical too, to conspire with each and every official involved in execution of public work”.

The Jotvas’ application, the court order notes, “vehemently submitted” that the complainant in the FIR is the “same officer responsible for monitoring the 60:40 ratio (for material:labour) and in case of any violation, the office was having powers to withhold or cancel the allocation of grant. However, at the relevant point of time, no question was raised.”

The court order noted the submission of the prosecutor of the state that it is a case of “huge loss and misappropriation of government money running into crores of rupees, and likely to spread over to many districts”.

What the prosecution submitted

The prosecution submitted that in the instant case, “out of 430 parts of 56 villages of Amod, Hasot, and Jambusar Talukas (of Bharuch district), the report (pertaining to) only 98 parts has been (received) so far wherein, misappropriation of Rs.2,30,22,744.01/- is found”. The report for the rest 332 parts of MGNREGA works is still awaited, “wherein, there is a possibility of high stake”.

Opposing the plea of Jotva and the others, the public prosecutor submitted that the offences for which the applicants have been booked include sections for which “life imprisonment is prescribed” and therefore, the sessions judge has “rightly cancelled the bail granted” to the applications.

The public prosecutor also submitted that the chargesheet of the case filed in the trial court contains statements of several witnesses and technical analysis of the construction of roads, and that the applicants are “influential persons and when the investigation is still going on and it is at a crucial stage, consideration of these applications may highly jeopardize the case of the prosecution”.

Citing relevant precedents of courts, the high court noted that the order for granting bail is an interlocutory order, against which revision cannot be sought under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), as the objective of revision petitions is to “set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law”.

The court order states, “…it is manifestly clear that the orders granting, rejecting and cancelling the bail are interlocutory orders against which, revision cannot lie as there is no finality to such orders for an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time… only on the ground of maintainability, these applications are rejected…”.