Public Servant in Custody for More Than 48 Hours is Deemed Suspended

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan decided Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar & Ors (2026). The Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order cancelling the appellant’s regular bail in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It restored the bail order passed by the Sessions Court. 

The Court also held: 

• A public servant arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is under deemed suspension. No specific order is needed. 
• In cases of this kind, bail should ordinarily be granted, keeping in mind the maximum punishment the trial court could impose. It can be refused only where the accused has criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross.

What was the Background of the Vishwajeet Singh v. State of Bihar (2026) Case? 

• The appellant: He was the Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, Bihar. 
• The allegation: He allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 4,000 for clearing the complainant’s wages of Rs 36,421. 
• The charge: He was booked under Section 7(b) of the PC Act. 
• Arrest and custody: He was arrested and stayed in judicial custody for about 15 days. 
• Sessions Court: It granted him regular bail. While doing so, it observed that the bribe amount was paltry. 
• Patna High Court: The complainant challenged the bail. Almost one year after the appellant’s release, the High Court cancelled the bail and directed that he be taken into custody. 
• Supreme Court: The appellant challenged the High Court’s order through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). 

The State’s submission on suspension: 

• The appellant was placed under suspension, but the suspension order was later revoked. 
• He was then posted again to the same hospital, on the same post. 

Questions before the Supreme Court: 

• Was the High Court right to cancel the regular bail granted by the Sessions Court? 
• What was the appellant’s service status after his arrest and time in judicial custody?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On deemed suspension: 

• The Court called it a “disturbing feature” that it should not ignore. 
• The appellant was in judicial custody for almost 15 days after his arrest. 
• Once a public servant is arrested and stays in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, he is under deemed suspension. 
• No specific order is needed for this. 

On the High Court’s cancellation of bail: 

• The High Court acted almost one year after the Sessions Court released the appellant on bail. 
• On a prima facie reading, the High Court was mainly influenced by the Sessions Court’s remark that the bribe amount was paltry. 
• The High Court may be right that the size of the bribe is not a relevant factor in deciding bail. 
• Even so, it could have let the appellant stay on bail. 

On the general approach to bail in such cases: 

• In cases of this type, bail should ordinarily be granted, having regard to the maximum punishment the trial court could impose if the accused is finally found guilty. 
• The court may refuse bail only when:  
  • the accused has criminal antecedents, or 
  • the facts are very gross. 

On the appellant’s reinstatement: 

• The Court recorded the State’s submission that the suspension was revoked and the appellant was posted again to the same hospital, on the same post. 
• The Court called this “shocking”. 
• It directed the State to look into the matter at the earliest.

Decision 

• The Patna High Court’s order cancelling bail was set aside. 
• The bail order of the Sessions Court was restored. 
• The Court held that a public servant in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is under deemed suspension, without any specific order. 
• The State was directed to look into the appellant’s reinstatement at the same hospital, on the same post, at the earliest.

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

About: 

• The Act consolidates and amends the law on preventing corruption by public servants. 
• It was substantially amended in 2018. The amendment introduced the concept of “undue advantage”, made bribe-giving a separate offence, and required prior approval before investigating public servants (Section 17A). 

Section 2(c) – Public Servant: 

• The definition is wide. It covers, among others, government employees, people in the pay of a local authority or a government-owned or government-aided body, judges, and others who perform public duties. 

Section 7 – Offence relating to a public servant being bribed: 

A public servant commits this offence if he: 

• (a) obtains, accepts or attempts to obtain an undue advantage, intending to perform or cause the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty, or to forbear from performing it; 
• (b) obtains, accepts or attempts to obtain an undue advantage as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty; or 
• (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly, in anticipation of or as a result of accepting an undue advantage. 

Punishment: Imprisonment of at least 3 years, up to 7 years, and a fine.

What is Deemed Suspension? 

About: 

• Deemed suspension takes effect by operation of law. The authority does not have to pass an order. 
• It is provided for in the service rules. For Central Government servants, Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 says that a government servant is deemed suspended from the date of detention if he is held in custody, on a criminal charge or otherwise, for more than 48 hours. 
• Most State service rules have similar provisions. 

Effect: 

• The deemed suspension continues until the competent authority modifies or revokes it.