Rs 4,000 bribe case: Supreme Court restores bail, calls reposting of hospital manager shocking
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manmohan set aside the Patna High Court order cancelling bail and ask Bihar to examine why a public servant held in custody was posted back to the same post.
The Supreme Court on 6 November 2026 restored the bail of a hospital manager in Bihar accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 4,000. The Patna High Court had cancelled that bail about a year after a Sessions Court granted it, and ordered him back into custody.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan then flagged a second problem. The appellant, it said, is a public servant who spent almost 15 days in judicial custody, yet he has been posted back to the same post at the same hospital.
A demand of Rs 4,000 over unpaid wages
The appellant, Vishwajeet Singh alias Bishwajeet Ramanand, works as a Manager or Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. The bench noted that the hospital appears to be a government hospital.
The allegation is that he demanded Rs 4,000 to clear the wages of the de facto complainant, which came to Rs 36,421. A First Information Report was registered at the Vigilance Police Station as Case No. 29 of 2025 under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail granted, then taken away
The appellant was arrested in connection with the FIR. The Sessions Court later released him on bail.
The de facto complainant, dissatisfied with that order, went to the Patna High Court. By its order of 1 July 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 74033 of 2025, the High Court allowed the application, cancelled the bail and directed that the appellant be taken into custody. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave.
Mr. Awanish Sinha argued for the appellant. Mr. Karan Verma appeared for the complainant and Ms. Aditi Tripathi for the State of Bihar.
What weighed with the High Court
The bench first took notice that the High Court had disturbed the bail order after almost a year. That was the interval between the appellant’s release by the Sessions Court and the High Court’s interference.
It then read the High Court order. Prima facie, the bench said, what weighed with the High Court was the Sessions Court’s observation, while granting bail, that the bribe amount was paltry.
Why the bench restored bail
The Supreme Court did not accept the High Court’s approach. Ordinarily, it said, having regard to the maximum punishment a trial court would impose if the accused is held guilty, bail is to be granted in cases of this type.
“It is only when there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross” (para 11)
Only then, the bench said, may a court decline to exercise its discretion in the accused’s favour. The bench agreed with the High Court on one point. The quantum of a bribe, it said, may not be a relevant factor in deciding whether bail should be granted.
But the High Court, the bench added, could have said so and still allowed the appellant to remain on bail. It set aside the impugned order and restored the Sessions Court’s bail order (paras 12 and 13).
The suspension that was lifted
Having disposed of the bail question, the bench said there was one disturbing feature it should not ignore. On arrest, the appellant had spent almost 15 days in judicial custody.
The bench stated the position as it saw it. When a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, “there is a deemed suspension” (para 14). No specific order is needed, it said, and the appellant could be taken to have been placed under deemed suspension.
Back in the same post
Counsel for the State told the bench that the appellant had in fact been placed under suspension. The suspension order was later revoked.
The bench recorded that, “shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital” and on the same post (para 15). The State, it said, should look into the matter at the earliest.
Order
The Supreme Court granted leave, set aside the Patna High Court order of 1 July 2026 and restored the bail granted by the Sessions Court. The appeal was disposed of, along with any pending applications.
The bench recorded that it expected the State to do the needful in accordance with law on the appellant’s posting. It issued no specific direction on that point. The order is signed by both judges and is dated 6 November 2026.