Supreme Court: Once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension

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. {Para 14}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.________OF 2026

(@ SLP(Criminal) No.13108/2026)

VISHWAJEET SINGH @BISHWAJEET  RAMANAND  Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Dated: 06th November, 2026.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 01.07.2026 in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.74033 of 2025 by which the

Criminal Miscellaneous Application preferred by the

respondent no.2-the de facto-complainant, praying for

cancellation of regular bail granted to the appellant

before us, came to be allowed, and thereby the

appellant was asked to be taken in custody.

1

3. It appears from the materials on record that a

First Information Report came to be lodged with the

Vigilance Police Station bearing Case No. 29 of 2025,

against the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act, 1988”).

4. The materials on record indicate that the

appellant is serving as a Manager/Administrator in a

Hospital by name Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. This

hospital appears to be a Government Hospital. The

allegations against the appellant are that he

demanded a bribe of the amount of Rs.4,000/- for the

purpose of clearing the wages of the de facto

complainant to the tune of Rs.36,421/-.

5. In connection with the FIR referred to above, the

appellant came to be arrested. Later he was ordered

to be released on bail by the Sessions Court.

6. The de facto complainant, being dissatisfied with

the order passed by the Sessions Court releasing the

2

appellant on bail, challenged the same before the

High Court. The High Court thought fit to interfere

with the order passed by the Sessions Court and

accordingly cancelled the bail granted to the

appellant.

7. In such circumstances, the appellant is here

before us with the present appeal.

8. We heard Mr. Awanish Sinha, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, Mr. Karan Verma, the

learned counsel appearing for the de facto

complainant (respondent no.2), Ms. Aditi Tripathi,

the learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr.

Parth Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent no. 4, respectively.

9. We take notice of the fact that after a period of

almost one year from the date of release of the

appellant on bail by the Sessions Court, the High

Court thought fit to disturb the order and cancel the

bail.

3

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are

of the view that we should set aside the impugned

order passed by the High Court and restore the

original bail order passed by the Sessions Court. We

order accordingly.

14. 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.

15. 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

5

into by the State at the earliest.

16. We expect the State to do the needful in the

matter in accordance with law.

17. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed

of.

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

...................J.

[J.B. PARDIWALA]

...................J.

[MANMOHAN]

New Delhi

06th November, 2026.

Print Page