New Delhi: A public servant who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours following arrest is deemed to be under suspension, and a separate suspension order is not necessary, the Supreme Court has observed.
The observation was made by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan while hearing an appeal filed by Vishwajeet Singh, an administrator at Sadar Hospital in Samastipur, Bihar. In an order dated November 6, the court restored the regular bail granted to Singh by a sessions court after setting aside a Patna High Court decision that had cancelled it.
The bench noted that Singh had spent nearly 15 days in judicial custody following his arrest in a corruption case. It said the period of detention was sufficient to attract deemed suspension for a public servant.
"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," Justice Pardiwala said in the order.
The bench also expressed concern that Singh's suspension had subsequently been revoked and that he had been posted back at the same hospital in the same position.
The bench's concern extended beyond the bail proceedings to Singh's subsequent service history.
According to the Supreme Court's November 6 order in Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v State of Bihar and Others, the state informed the court that Singh had initially been suspended following his arrest, but the suspension was subsequently revoked.
The court questioned the decision to post him back at Sadar Hospital in Samastipur, particularly in the same position he had held before his arrest.
Describing the development as disturbing, the bench directed the Bihar government to examine the matter at the earliest and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
The case originated from a complaint by a contractual worker associated with the ambulance service at Sadar Hospital.
According to the prosecution's account recorded in the Patna High Court judgment dated July 1, 2026, the complainant alleged that Singh demanded Rs 4,000 to facilitate the release of his outstanding wages of Rs 36,421.
A case was registered at the Vigilance Police Station in 2025 under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Singh was arrested on May 19, 2025, and remanded to judicial custody the following day. The Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, granted him regular bail on June 4, 2025.
The complainant subsequently approached the Patna High Court seeking cancellation of the bail. On July 1, 2026, the High Court accepted the plea and directed that Singh be taken into custody.
Singh challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the Patna High Court had interfered with the bail granted by the sessions court almost a year after Singh's release.
The bench observed that the alleged bribe amount being small was not, by itself, a relevant consideration for deciding whether bail should be granted. However, it said the High Court could have expressed its disagreement with that reasoning without cancelling the bail.
The court also observed that bail would ordinarily be appropriate in cases of this nature, having regard to the maximum punishment involved, unless the accused had criminal antecedents or the circumstances were particularly serious.
It consequently set aside the Patna High Court's July 1 order and restored the original bail granted by the sessions court.
The restoration of bail does not amount to an acquittal. The allegations against Singh remain subject to the criminal proceedings.
(With inputs from Supreme Court of India order | Patna High Court judgment | LiveLaw)