Supreme Court says govt employee in judicial custody for over 48 hrs is deemed suspended

Millat Times Desk

10 November 2026 (Publish: 08:15 AM IST)

0

The Supreme Court has clarified that a government employee who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours following an arrest is automatically deemed to be under suspension, even if the authorities have not issued a separate suspension order. 

The observation came while the court was hearing a bribery case involving a manager of a government hospital in Bihar, who was allegedly reinstated at the same hospital and on the same post after his suspension was revoked.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan made the observation while hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court order that had cancelled the regular bail granted to the accused by a sessions court in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant had served as a manager/administrator at Sadar Hospital in Samastipur, Bihar. He was booked under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act over allegations that he demanded a bribe of ₹4,000 from a complainant in exchange for clearing pending wages of ₹36,421.

Following his arrest, the accused was granted bail by the sessions court. However, the complainant challenged the decision before the Patna High Court, which subsequently cancelled his bail and directed that he be taken into custody.

Challenging the High Court’s decision, the accused approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the accused had remained in judicial custody for nearly 15 days following his arrest. The bench said that under the applicable rules, a public servant who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be under suspension, and no separate order is necessary for this purpose.

“There is one disturbing feature which we should not ignore. It appears that upon arrest, the accused appellant 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. 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 observed.

The court also questioned the circumstances under which the Patna High Court cancelled the accused’s bail nearly a year after the sessions court had granted him relief.

It observed that the High Court appeared to have been influenced by the sessions court’s remark that the alleged bribe amount was relatively small.

Discussing the general principles governing bail in corruption cases, the Supreme Court said that bail should ordinarily be granted in cases where the likely punishment is not severe, unless the accused has criminal antecedents or the allegations involve particularly serious circumstances.

“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 said.

The court acknowledged that the amount of the alleged bribe was not, by itself, a relevant consideration for deciding whether bail should be granted. However, it said the accused could have been allowed to remain on bail.

The bench subsequently set aside the Patna High Court’s order and restored the bail granted by the sessions court.

During the proceedings, the State informed the Supreme Court that the accused had initially been placed under suspension following his arrest, but the suspension order was later revoked.

The court expressed serious concern after being informed that the accused had subsequently been posted at the same hospital and in the same position.

“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,” the bench observed.

The Supreme Court directed the Bihar government to examine the matter at the earliest while restoring the accused’s bail.

The court’s observations underline the rule of deemed suspension applicable to government employees who remain in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, while also raising questions about the State government’s decision to reinstate the accused at the same hospital and on the same post.