Public Servant In Judicial Custody For Over 48 Hours Is Under Deemed Suspension, No Specific Order Required: Supreme Court
The Court restored bail to a hospital manager in a ₹4,000 bribery case and asked the State to look into his reposting to the same hospital and post after his suspension was revoked.
The Supreme Court has observed that once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension, and no specific order is required to be passed in this regard.
The Court took note of the fact that the appellant, a Manager/Administrator at a Government hospital accused of demanding a bribe, had been in judicial custody for almost 15 days. His suspension was later revoked and he was posted back to the very same hospital, on the very same post. The Court called this a disturbing feature and directed the State to look into it at the earliest.
The Court also set aside the order of the Patna High Court cancelling the appellant’s bail and restored the bail order passed by the Sessions Court.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan observed, “However, there is one disturbing feature which we should not ignore. It appears, that upon arrest, the appellant accused was in judicial custody for almost a period of 15 days. Once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension. He being a public servant, he could be said to have been placed under deemed suspension. No specific order is required to be passed in this regard.”
Advocate Awanish Sinha appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Aditi Tripathi appeared for the State.
Brief Facts
A First Information Report was lodged with the Vigilance Police Station against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was serving as a Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, a Government hospital. He was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹4,000 for clearing the wages of the de facto complainant amounting to ₹36,421.
The appellant was arrested and later released on bail by the Sessions Court. The de facto complainant, dissatisfied with the bail order, challenged it before the High Court. Almost a year after the appellant’s release, the High Court cancelled his bail and directed that he be taken into custody.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Observations/Findings of the Court
The Court noted that the High Court had disturbed the bail order after almost one year, and observed, “Prima facie, it appears from the tenor of the impugned order that what weighed with the High Court was the observation of the Sessions Court, while releasing the appellant on bail that the bribe amount was paltry.”
On the grant of bail in such cases, the Court observed, “Ordinarily, in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment that the trial court would impose, ultimately, if the accused is held to be guilty, bail is to be granted. It is only when there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross that the court may decline to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused.”
The Court agreed with the High Court on the irrelevance of the bribe amount, but held that this alone did not justify cancelling bail. It observed that the High Court may be right in observing that the quantum of the bribe amount is not a relevant factor for the purpose of determining whether bail should be granted or not. However, High Court could have observed this much and allowed the appellant accused to remain on bail.
Turning to the appellant’s service status, the Court recorded the State counsel’s statement on the suspension and reposting, observing, “We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in fact the appellant was placed under suspension but later, the suspension order came to be revoked, and, shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital and that too on the very same post. This aspect shall be looked into by the State at the earliest.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the bail order of the Sessions Court.
Cause Title: Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13108/2026]
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Awanish Sinha, Advocates Prem Ranjan Kumar, Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Desh Ratan Nigam and Sumit Kumar.
Respondents: AOR Karan Verma, AOR Aditi Tripathi, AOR Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates Udayan Sinha, Parth Shekhar, Ambali Vedsen, Shubham Singh and Arvind Kumar Tomar.