Public Servant Arrested & Kept In Custody For More Than 48 Hours Is Deemed Suspended; No Specific Order Needed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a public servant who is arrested and is kept in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is under 'deemed suspension', and that no specific order is required for this. With this, the bench also expressed its concern that a Bihar hospital manager accused in a bribery case had been reinstated in the same hospital, on the same post.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan observed so while hearing an appeal against the Patna High Court's order cancelling the regular bail of the appellant in a Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) case. The bench, thus, set aside the High Court's order and restored the bail granted by the Sessions Court.

The appellant served as a Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. He was booked under Section 7(b) of the PC Act, on the allegation that he demanded a bribe of Rs 4,000 for clearing the complainant's wages of Rs 36,421. Thereafter, he was arrested but was later released on bail by the Sessions Court. The complainant then challenged the bail before the Patna High Court which cancelled the bail and directed that the appellant be taken into custody.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

Perusing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“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 noted that the High Court acted after a period of almost one year from the date of release of the appellant on bail by the Sessions Court. “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,” the bench added.

With regards to the general approach to bail in such cases, the Court 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 bench observed that the High Court might be correct 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, it could have allowed the appellant accused to remain on bail.

“We are of the view that 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,” the bench held.

Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant had been in judicial custody for almost 15 days after his arrest and was therefore deemed to be under suspension.

On this, the respondent apprised the Court that the appellant was placed under suspension, but the suspension order was later revoked. The Court recorded the submission and observed as follows:

“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.”

Applying the aforesaid, the High Court's order was set aside, restoring the bail order passed by the Sessions Court.

Appearances:

For Appellant: Mr. Awanish Sinha, AOR; Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Adv.; Mr. Desh Ratan Nigam, Adv.; Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

For Respondents: Mr. Karan Verma, AOR; Ms. Aditi Tripathi, AOR; Mr. Udayan Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR; Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv.; Ms. Ambali Vedsen, Adv.; Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv.; Mr. Arvind Kumar Tomar, Adv.