A public servant kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be suspended, and no separate order is needed. The Supreme Court said so in Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar (order dated 6 November 2026). The Court also restored the bail of a Bihar government hospital official accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Patna High Court had cancelled that bail almost a year after it was granted.
Case at a glance
- Case: Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1146
- Arising from: SLP (Crl.) No. 13108 of 2026
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan
- Date: 6 November 2026 (signed order)
- Under appeal: Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 74033 of 2025, order dated 1 July 2026
- Result: High Court order set aside; Sessions Court’s bail restored; State to examine the reinstatement
Facts
- The appellant is a Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, a government hospital in Bihar.
- He is accused of demanding a bribe of ₹4,000 to clear the complainant’s wages of ₹36,421. Vigilance Police Station Case No. 29 of 2025 was registered under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- He was arrested, spent about 15 days in judicial custody, and was then granted regular bail by the Sessions Court.
- The complainant challenged the bail. On 1 July 2026, almost a year after he was released, the Patna High Court cancelled the bail and directed that he be taken into custody.
What the Supreme Court said
1. Deemed suspension after 48 hours in custody
The appellant had been in judicial custody for about 15 days. The Court noted that a public servant kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be suspended, and no specific order is required (para 14).
The State told the Court that he had been suspended, but the suspension was later revoked. He was posted back to the same hospital, in the same post. The Court directed the State to look into this at the earliest, and said it expects the State to act in accordance with law (paras 15 and 16).
2. Cancellation of bail set aside
- Delay. The High Court disturbed the bail roughly a year after the Sessions Court released the accused (para 9).
- Wrong influence. Prima facie, the High Court seems to have been swayed by the Sessions Court’s remark that the bribe amount was “paltry” (para 10).
- Bail is the norm. In such cases bail is ordinarily granted, given the maximum punishment. It may be refused only if there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross (para 11).
- Amount of the bribe. The High Court may be right that the bribe amount is not relevant to bail. Even so, it should have let the bail stand (para 12).
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Sessions Court’s bail order (para 13).
Where the 48-hour rule comes from
The order does not cite a specific rule. The principle is found in the service rules: for example, Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the corresponding rules of most States. Under these rules, a government servant detained in custody, criminal or otherwise, for more than 48 hours is deemed suspended from the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority. The suspension continues until further orders.
Why it matters
- For departments: deemed suspension operates automatically. Reinstating an employee facing a corruption case to the same post invites scrutiny.
- For the accused: the order reaffirms that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled without strong reasons. A year’s delay and an irrelevant factor such as the size of the bribe weaken a cancellation.