Rs 4,000 Bribe Case: Supreme Court Restores Bail Of Bihar Hospital Manager, Calls His Reposting To The Same Post "Shocking"

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, however, did not let the matter rest there. Noting what it described as "one disturbing feature", the Bench recorded that the accused, after spending about 15 days in judicial custody and being suspended, had his suspension revoked and was "shockingly" posted back "in the very same hospital and that too on the very same post". The Court directed the State to look into the matter "at the earliest".

The appeal arose from SLP against the Patna High Court's order dated July 1, 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 74033 of 2025.

Background

According to the order, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Vigilance Police Station against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant serves as a Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, which the Court noted "appears to be a Government Hospital". The allegation against him is 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/-."

He was arrested in connection with the FIR and was later released on bail by the Sessions Court. The de facto complainant, dissatisfied with that order, moved the High Court, which interfered with the Sessions Court's order and cancelled the bail, directing that the appellant be taken into custody.

The Supreme Court took note of the time that had elapsed before the High Court intervened. "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," the Bench observed.

The Court also identified what appeared to have driven the cancellation. "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," it said.

Laying down the approach to be followed, the Bench said, "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."

The Court accepted that the High Court may have been correct in principle in faulting the Sessions Court's reliance on the size of the bribe, but held that this did not justify sending the accused back to custody.

"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."

Accordingly, the Bench held, "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."

Having restored bail, the Court turned to the appellant's service position. It recorded that upon arrest he had been in judicial custody "for almost a period of 15 days", and observed, "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."

Counsel for the State informed the Bench that the appellant had in fact been placed under suspension, but that the suspension was later revoked. The Court recorded that "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 into by the State at the earliest," the Bench said, adding, "We expect the State to do the needful in the matter in accordance with law."

With these observations, the appeal was disposed of, along with pending applications.

Case Title: Vishwajeet Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. 

Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan 

Order Date: November 6, 2026