NEW DELHI — A public servant who is arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is under deemed suspension by operation of law, and no separate suspension order needs to be passed, the Supreme Court observed on Monday, November 9, while restoring bail to a Bihar hospital manager in a corruption case.

Source: Live Law

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan made the observation while hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court order that had cancelled the regular bail of the appellant in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bench set aside the High Court's order and restored the bail granted by the Sessions Court.

Source: Live Law

The appellant worked as a manager/administrator at Sadar Hospital in Samastipur, Bihar. He was booked under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation — which he contests through the court process — that he demanded a bribe of Rs 4,000 for clearing the complainant's wages of Rs 36,421. He was arrested and spent almost 15 days in judicial custody before the Sessions Court released him on bail, Live Law reported.

Source: Live Law

"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," the bench said, in the passage quoted by Live Law and summarised by SNS Legal Aid.

Source: SNS Legal Aid

The court also recorded a sharper concern. Counsel for the State told the bench the appellant had in fact been placed under suspension, but the order was later revoked and, in the court's word, "shockingly", he was posted again in the very same hospital and on the very same post. "This aspect shall be looked into by the State at the earliest," the bench directed.

Source: Live Law

On bail itself, the bench noted the High Court had acted almost a year after the Sessions Court granted bail, and said that ordinarily, in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment the trial court could ultimately impose if the accused is held guilty, bail is to be granted — unless there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross. The bench said the High Court might be correct that the small size of the alleged bribe amount is not by itself a relevant factor, but it could still have allowed the appellant to remain on bail.

Source: Live Law

What happens next: the bail order of the Sessions Court stands restored, the corruption case itself continues through the trial process, and the State of Bihar has been directed to examine, at the earliest, how the appellant came to be reinstated to the same hospital and the same post after his suspension was revoked. The case is reported as Vishwajeet Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1146.

Source: SNS Legal Aid