New Delhi: The Supreme Court has restored the bail of a hospital manager accused of demanding a ₹4,000 bribe, which the Patna High Court had cancelled almost a year after the Sessions Court granted it, while also observing that a public servant in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is under deemed suspension, and expecting the State of Bihar to examine his reinstatement in the same post.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan passed the order on 6 November 2026.
The appeal, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13108 of 2026, was filed by Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand against the High Court’s order dated 01.07.2026 in Criminal Misc. No. 74033 of 2025, which allowed the de facto complainant’s application for cancellation of his regular bail and directed that he be taken into custody.
According to the order, an FIR (Vigilance Police Station Case No. 29 of 2025) was registered against the appellant under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He serves as a Manager/Administrator of Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, a Government hospital, and is accused of demanding a bribe of ₹4,000 for clearing the wages of the complainant, amounting to ₹36,421. He was arrested and later released on bail by the Sessions Court, and the complainant challenged that order before the High Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court interfered almost one year after the appellant’s release on bail, and said that, prima facie, what weighed with the High Court was the Sessions Court’s observation that the bribe amount was paltry. It held that, in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment the trial court would impose, bail is ordinarily to be granted, and a court may decline it only where there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross.
The Court said that the High Court may be right in observing that the quantum of the bribe is not a relevant factor for deciding bail, but that it could have observed this much and allowed the appellant to remain on bail. It therefore set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Sessions Court’s bail order.
The Court then recorded what it called a “disturbing feature”. The appellant had been in judicial custody for almost 15 days after his arrest, and, it said, once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension for which no specific order is required.
The State’s counsel informed the Court that the appellant had in fact been placed under suspension, but the order was later revoked, and that, as the Court put it, “shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital” and on the same post. The Court directed that the State look into this aspect at the earliest and said that it expected the State to do the needful in accordance with law.
The appeal was disposed of with these observations, along with pending applications. The order does not examine the merits of the corruption allegation, which remains for trial.
Appearances: For the Appellant: Mr. Awanish Sinha, AOR, with Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Mr. Desh Ratan Nigam and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates. For the De Facto Complainant (Respondent No. 2): Mr. Karan Verma, AOR. For the State of Bihar: Ms. Aditi Tripathi, AOR. For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Parth Shekhar, Advocate.
Case Title: Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. The State of Bihar and Others, Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13108 of 2026
