Can the size of an alleged bribe decide whether bail stays or goes? The Supreme Court has restored bail to a hospital administrator accused of demanding ₹4,000 to clear wages, holding that disagreement with the Sessions Court’s description of the bribe as small did not warrant cancelling bail in the circumstances. Separately, it asked Bihar to examine why the accused had been reinstated at the same hospital and in the same post after suspension.
New Delhi: A hospital administrator accused of demanding ₹4,000 to clear a complainant’s wages will remain on bail after the Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court order cancelling it, while also flagging the State’s decision to post him back to the same position after revoking his suspension [Vishwajeet Singh alias Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar & Others].
The order of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan is dated November 6, 2026 and was uploaded on November 7. It restores the Sessions Court’s bail order and does not decide whether the accused committed the alleged offence.
Back in the same post
Alongside the bail question, the Bench pointed to what it called a disturbing feature of the case. The appellant had spent about fifteen days in judicial custody, and the Court referred to deemed suspension where a public servant remains in judicial custody for more than forty-eight hours.
State counsel informed the Court that the appellant had been suspended, but the suspension was later revoked and he was posted again at the very same hospital and in the same post.
The Court asked the State to examine that aspect at the earliest and take the necessary steps in accordance with law. It did not itself order dismissal from service or direct a fresh suspension.
The ₹4,000 allegation
The appellant, described in the order as a manager or administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, was accused of demanding ₹4,000 for clearing the complainant’s wages of ₹36,421. A vigilance case was registered under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
After his arrest, the Sessions Court granted him bail. The complainant challenged that decision and the High Court cancelled bail, interfering, as the Supreme Court noted, almost a year after the appellant’s release.
Why the amount did not settle the question
Prima facie, the Supreme Court observed, the Sessions Court’s description of the bribe amount as paltry appeared to have weighed with the High Court. It accepted that the quantum of the alleged bribe was not a relevant factor for deciding bail, but said the High Court could have made that observation while allowing the accused to remain on bail.
In paragraph 11, the Bench stated that bail should ordinarily be granted in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment that could ultimately be imposed on conviction. Criminal antecedents or particularly gross facts could justify refusing to exercise that discretion.
On that approach, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the original bail order. The reasoning does not treat a small alleged bribe as harmless or amount to a finding that the prosecution is unfounded. The appeal was disposed of, leaving the corruption allegations to be determined in the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Vishwajeet Singh alias Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5282/2026, arising from SLP(Crl) No. 13108/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan
Order Date: November 6, 2026
Outcome: Sessions Court bail restored; State asked to examine reinstatement in the same hospital post.