The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Patna High Court that had cancelled regular bail granted to a public servant accused of demanding a ₹4,000 bribe. While restoring the Sessions Court’s order granting relief to the official, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan raised serious concerns over the Bihar government’s decision to reinstate him to the exact same post after his release.
Background
The case stems from a corruption complaint registered at the Vigilance Police Station against Vishwajeet Singh alias Bishwajeet Ramanand, who worked as a Manager/Administrator at the government-run Sadar Hospital in Samastipur. The complainant accused Singh of demanding ₹4,000 to process pending wages amounting to ₹36,421.
Following his arrest, Singh spent nearly 15 days in judicial custody before the local Sessions Court granted him regular bail. Nearly a year later, the de facto complainant approached the Patna High Court seeking cancellation of the bail. The High Court allowed the plea and directed that the accused be taken into custody, primarily taking issue with the Sessions Court’s remark that the alleged bribe amount was "paltry." Singh subsequently appealed to the apex court.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that disturbing a bail order after a year of peaceful liberty was unwarranted. While acknowledging the High Court’s view that the quantum of a bribe should not determine bail eligibility, the Bench observed that this alone was not a valid ground to cancel bail.
"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 Bench observed in its judgment.
Addressing the procedural impropriety of reinstating an accused public servant, the Court highlighted:
"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. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in fact the appellant was placed under suspension but later, the suspension order came to be revoked, and, 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."
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court restored the original order of the Sessions Court granting regular bail to the appellant.
However, it directed the Bihar government to immediately look into the matter regarding his reinstatement to the same post and take necessary steps in accordance with law.
