The Supreme Court has held that a public servant who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be under suspension, and no separate order is required to give effect to the provision.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manmohan made the observation while restoring the bail granted to Vishwajeet Singh, administrator of the Sadar Hospital in Bihar's Samastipur, who was arrested in a bribery case.
Singh was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 4,000 to clear the pending wages of Rs 36,421 due to a contractual worker.
The apex court set aside a July 1, 2026, order of the Patna High Court cancelling Singh's bail nearly a year after it was granted by the sessions court.
While allowing his appeal, the Supreme Court said the amount allegedly demanded as a bribe was not a relevant consideration in deciding a bail plea. It observed that the high court could have disagreed with the sessions court's description of the amount as "paltry" without cancelling the bail.
However, the bench flagged what it described as a "disturbing feature" concerning Singh's service status after his arrest.
Noting that Singh had remained in judicial custody for nearly 15 days, Justice Pardiwala said, "Once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension. 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."
The bench took note of the fact that Singh was initially suspended following his arrest, but the suspension was subsequently revoked.
" And, shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital and that too on the very same post," it said, asking the Bihar government to examine the matter at the earliest and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
According to the case records, an FIR was registered against Singh at the Vigilance police station in 2025 under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Following his arrest, the sessions court granted him bail. The complainant subsequently approached the Patna High Court, which cancelled the bail and directed that Singh be taken into custody.
The Supreme Court noted that the high court had intervened nearly a year after Singh's release on bail. It said the tenor of the high court's order suggested that the sessions court's reference to the bribe amount being paltry had weighed with it while cancelling the bail.
"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," the bench observed.
It added that bail could be denied in cases involving criminal antecedents or where the facts and circumstances were particularly grave.
(With inputs from PTI)
