Jay Ram Singh vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74033 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Jay Ram Singh, son of Rajendra Mandal, Resident of village - Bathnaha, P.O-
Bathaura, P.S- Khanpur, Dist.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna
3. Vishwajeet Singh, son of Bhushan Kumar Chaudhary, resident of Village-
Baribehta, P.S-Charaut, District – Sitamahi, Ex Hospital Manager, Sadar
Hospital Samastipur
4. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Vigilance Deptt. : Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 03 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
The present application has been filed by the
petitioner-informant under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying for
cancellation of the regular bail granted to the opposite party
no.3, namely, Vishwajeet Singh, by the Special Judge,
Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 04.06.2025, passed in
connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 of 2025,
corresponding to Special Case No. 20 of 2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
2/32
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, arises out of a
written report submitted by the informant/petitioner, Jay Ram
Singh, to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on
13.05.2025. The informant/petitioner stated therein that he is
engaged as a driver of the ‘102’ ambulance service (Dial 102)
attached to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, on a daily-wage basis,
his daily wages being Rs.301/-, and that his wages for the period
from December, 2024 to March, 2025, amounting to
approximately to Rs.36,421/-, were due and payable to him but
the same were not paid. It was alleged that in connection with
the disbursement of the said dues, the opposite party no.3, who,
at the relevant time, was posted as Hospital Manager at the
aforesaid Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, demanded a sum of
Rs.4,000/- from the informant/petitioner by way of illegal
gratification, and threatened that in the event of non-payment of
the said amount, he would be removed from service. The
informant/petitioner, asserting that he was unwilling to pay the
bribe, approached the Vigilance Department for appropriate
action against the opposite party no.3.
3. According to the prosecution, the allegation
was verified by an officer of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
3/32
on 17.05.2025, in course of which, the petitioner and the verifier
met the opposite party no.3 at his office in Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur, and the conversation between the petitioner and the
opposite party no.3 was secretly recorded on a device. The
verifier is said to have found the demand of Rs. 4,000/- to be
substantiated, and submitted his verification report on
19.05.2025. On the basis of the said verification report and the
written complaint, Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 of 2025, dated
19.05.2025, came to be registered against the opposite party
no.3 under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. A trap was thereafter organized on the same day. In the
course of the pre-trap proceeding, the petitioner produced the
sum of Rs.4,000/-, the G.C. notes were treated with
phenolphthalein, the numbers of the notes were recorded, and a
pre-trap memorandum was prepared and signed by the members
of the trap team along with the petitioner.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that
the trap team proceeded to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, where
the opposite party no.3 is alleged to have demanded and
accepted the sum of Rs.4,000/- from the petitioner-informant
and to have kept the amount in the upper pocket of his check-
patterned shirt. On the signal of the verifier, the trap team is said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
4/32
to have apprehended the opposite party no.3 and, in the presence
of two independent witnesses, recovered the tainted money from
his pocket, the numbers of the recovered notes tallying with
those recorded in the pre-trap memorandum. The washes of both
hands of the opposite party no.3 and of the pocket of his shirt
are stated to have turned pink, and were collected, sealed and
marked as Exhibits, and subsequently, a post-trap memorandum
was drawn up.
5. The exhibits were thereafter sent for
scientific examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Patna, and as per F.S.L. Report No.2230 of 2025 dated
05.07.2025, phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were
detected. The opposite party no.3 was arrested on 19.05.2025
and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2025.
6. Subsequently, a regular bail petition was
moved on behalf of the opposite party no.3 on 03.06.2025. The
said bail petition was taken up and disposed of by the Special
Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, by the impugned order dated
04.06.2025. The Court recorded the submissions advanced on
behalf of the opposite party no.3 to the effect that he is innocent
having been falsely implicated and has no criminal antecedent.
Further, that the alleged sum of Rs.4,000/- was, in fact, an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
5/32
amount given by him to the petitioner by way of loan at the time
of the festival of Holi on 09.03.2025, in the presence of his wife
and other staff, which the petitioner, despite receiving his dues,
had failed to return, and thereafter, by way of a criminal
conspiracy, sought to convert the said loan into an allegation of
bribe. Finally, vide the impugned order, the Court below, while
granting bail, observed, inter alia , that the act attributed to the
opposite party no.3 “ is not tolerable at all ”, but proceeded to
note that he had remained in custody for about fifteen days and
that the amount of the alleged bribe was “ very low ”, and on that
basis allowed the regular bail petition of the accused-opposite
party no.3, which is under challenge by way of the instant
petition.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the bail granted to the opposite
party no.3 is liable to be cancelled since the allegation of
corruption is itself grave in nature and the opposite party no.3
was caught red-handed in a vigilance trap with the tainted
money. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized
that the act, even on the showing of the Court below, was “not
tolerable at all”, yet the Court below granted bail which is not
sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
6/32
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the opposite party no.3 ought not to have been
enlarged on bail within only about fifteen days of his remand,
particularly without completion of investigation and framing of
charge, more so, when the opposite party no.3 is likely to
tamper with the witnesses and the evidence. It is the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the manner in
which the bail came to be granted is in itself indicative of the
impropriety of the order and is, therefore, unsustainable. It is
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order granting bail, passed without considering the
gravity of the offence and the materials which have come
against the opposite party no.3, who is a Government servant
having been caught red-handed, would simply boost the morale
of corrupt public servants and defeat the very object of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasized that the petitioner is a poor person who had been
earning his livelihood as a daily-wage worker at Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur for over ten years, and that after lodging the present
case he has been removed from service, whereas the opposite
party no.3 has been reinstated, initially at a different place and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
7/32
subsequently to the very institution where he was caught red-
handed accepting bribe. It is submitted that immediately after
obtaining bail, the opposite party no.3 applied on 06.06.2025 for
permission to rejoin service, and he has thereafter been
threatening the petitioner with dire consequences.
10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Puran v. Rambilas & Anr. , reported as
(2001) 6 SCC 338 , Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. ,
reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559 and Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr .,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768 , for the proposition that an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal or perverse, or which is
founded upon irrelevant considerations while ignoring the
relevant material on record, is always open to be set aside by the
superior Court, and such power, being distinct from the power to
cancel bail for misuse of liberty, therefore does not require any
supervening misconduct to be shown.
11. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the opposite party no.2, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau,
supporting the case of the petitioner for cancellation of the bail
granted to the accused-opposite party no.3. The learned counsel
for the Vigilance Department has submitted that the demand and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
8/32
acceptance of illegal gratification, which constitute the sine qua
non of an offence under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, stand prima facie established, firstly , by
the transcript of the conversation recorded at the time of
verification, as reproduced in the counter affidavit, secondly , by
the post-trap memorandum, and thirdly , by the recovery of the
tainted money, supported by the positive report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory. It is further submitted that the grant of
regular bail to the opposite party no.3 is likely to have an
adverse effect upon the investigation of the case, inasmuch as,
after the grant of bail on 04.06.2025, the opposite party no.3
came to be reinstated and subsequently posted in the very same
office, without any inquiry, which may afford him an
opportunity to tamper with the evidence.
12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the Vigilance Department that the investigation in the
present case is still pending and if the opposite party no.3 is
allowed to remain on bail without the framing of charge, he is
likely not only to affect the investigation but also to delay the
trial of the case. The learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department has drawn strength from the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
9/32
State of Punjab , reported as 2025 INSC 320 : (2025) 4 SCC
493 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while declining
anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of corruption,
observed as under:-
“23. The presumption of innocence, by itself,
cannot be the sole consideration for grant of
anticipatory bail. The presumption of
innocence is one of the considerations, which
the court should keep in mind while
considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The
salutary rule is to balance the cause of the
accused and the cause of public justice. Over
solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can,
sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure
corruption free society, then the courts should
not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where
overwhelming considerations in the nature
aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it
has to be denied. It is altogether a different
thing to say that once the investigation is over
and charge-sheet is filed, the court may
consider to grant regular bail to a public
servant - accused of indulging in corruption.”
13. The opposite party no.3 has also filed a
counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the opposite party
no.3 has, at the outset, submitted that the present application
seeking cancellation of bail was filed after about four months
from the date of the impugned order granting bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
10/32
opposite party no.3, which itself established that there was no
emergent threat to the petitioner.
14. The learned counsel for the opposite party
no.3 has argued that the considerations governing the
cancellation of bail stand on a footing entirely different from
those governing the grant of bail, and bail once granted is not to
be cancelled in a routine, mechanical or punitive manner, in the
absence of misuse of liberty, violation of conditions,
interference with the investigation or trial, threat to witnesses,
attempt to abscond, or procurement of bail by fraud or
misrepresentation. It is the categorical submission of the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.3 that none of the grounds
warranting cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party
no.3 are made out in the facts of the present case. It is the
submission on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that the present
application discloses no cogent supervening circumstance
arising after the grant of bail, and is, in substance, a challenge to
the correctness of the original bail order upon the very same
material that were available before the Court below, repackaged
as an application for cancellation, which is wholly
impermissible.
15. It is the next submission of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
11/32
counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the allegation regarding
reinstatement of the opposite party no.3 has been presented in a
selective and misleading manner. It is submitted that by office
order dated 16.06.2025, the opposite party no.3 was relieved
from suspension and posted as Hospital Manager, Referral
Hospital, Tajpur, and, pertinently, was not continued at Sadar
Hospital, Samastipur. Further, it was only by a subsequent
administrative office order dated 23.12.2025 that he came to be
re-posted at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Therefore, it is the
submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3
that the posting of the opposite party no.3 at Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur was not done immediately after obtaining bail, but
was caused by an administrative need.
16. The learned counsel for the opposite party
no.3 has next submitted that the allegation of threat levelled in
the application is completely vague, bald and bereft of any
particulars, inasmuch as, no date, time, place or manner has
been stated, and no sanha entry, police complaint, affidavit of
any witness or other contemporaneous material has been
annexed in support thereof. It is the categorical submission of
the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that there has
been an unexplained delay between the grant of bail vide the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
12/32
impugned order dated 04.06.2025 and the filing of the present
petition, which, in essence, completely belies any threat to the
petitioner or the existence of any genuine post-bail emergency
warranting interference by this Court. Lastly, the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.3 has submitted that the
petitioner has failed to place on record any material to show that
the opposite party no.3 has violated any condition of bail,
absconded, failed to co-operate with the investigation, or
tampered with the evidence. It is emphasized by the learned
counsel that the principal evidence in the present case, being
documentary, electronic and official in nature, is already in the
custody of the investigating agency and, therefore, no ground
for interference is made out. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, reliance was placed upon Himanshu Sharma v.
State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 ,
Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary
& Ors. , reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 , and the decision of this
Court in Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar (Cr. Misc.
No.48262 of 2023, decided on 27.09.2024) .
17. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated
30.03.2026, the petitioner impleaded the Civil Surgeon-cum-
Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur, as the opposite party no.4,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
13/32
and a counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. In the said
counter affidavit, it has been submitted that upon the arrest of
the opposite party no.3 by the Vigilance Department on
19.05.2025, he was placed under suspension and subsequently,
after obtaining bail, the opposite party no.3 submitted an
application on 06.06.2025 seeking to resume his duties, and the
Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, vide letters no.761
and 763 dated 06.06.2025, apprised the Civil Surgeon and
sought guidance in the matter. Thereafter, vide letter No.595
dated 10.06.2025, the opposite party no.3 was called upon to
furnish an undertaking to abide by the orders of the Special
Court, which undertaking was furnished by him on 12.06.2025.
It is next submitted that vide order dated 16.06.2025, the
opposite party no.3 was relieved from suspension and posted,
with immediate effect, as Hospital Manager at the Referral
Hospital, Tajpur, while one Sri Sunny Dayal Rai was posted to
Sadar Hospital, Samastipur.
18. It is next submitted that upon a complaint
dated 24.01.2026 filed by the petitioner before the Divisional
Commissioner, Darbhanga, the Divisional Commissioner
directed for conducting an enquiry, and in pursuance thereof, an
enquiry was conducted and a detailed report dated 09.03.2026
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
14/32
was submitted, recording, inter alia , that the criminal case was
pending and that the allegations against the opposite party no.3
have not yet been proved.
19. It is the categorical submission on behalf of
the opposite party no.4 - Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer, Samastipur, that the subsequent re-posting of the
opposite party no.3 at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, vide order
dated 23.12.2025, was effected on administrative grounds and in
public interest, having regard to his prior work experience and
also owing to the dissatisfaction expressed with the management
of his successor, and was not a consequence of the order
granting bail.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their submissions. I have also perused the
materials available on record, including the impugned order
dated 04.06.2025, by which the opposite party no.3 has been
granted bail.
21. From the records, it appears that the opposite
party no.3, the then Hospital Manager, Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur, was apprehended in a vigilance trap on 19.05.2025
and the tainted sum of Rs.4,000/- was recovered from the upper
pocket of his shirt in the presence of two independent witnesses,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
15/32
the numbers of the recovered notes tallying with those recorded
in the pre-trap memorandum. The washes of both his hands and
of the pocket of his shirt turned pink, and the F.S.L. Report
No.2230 of 2025 dated 05.07.2025 confirmed the presence of
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. The opposite party no.3
was remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2025 and, while the
investigation was still at its inception, he came to be enlarged on
bail by the impugned order dated 04.06.2025, i.e., within about
fifteen days of his remand, upon the twin considerations of the
period of custody undergone and the amount of the alleged bribe
being very low, notwithstanding the observation of the Court
below itself that the act attributed to him is not tolerable at all. It
further appears that after the grant of bail, the opposite party
no.3 was relieved from suspension and posted at the Referral
Hospital, Tajpur, on 16.06.2025, and thereafter, vide office order
dated 23.12.2025, he came to be re-posted as Hospital Manager
at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, i.e., the very institution where the
trap was laid and where the witnesses of the occurrence are
posted.
22. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties
and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the moot
question that arises for consideration in the present application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
16/32
is whether the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 is illegal,
perverse or founded upon irrelevant considerations, so as to
warrant its annulment by this Court.
23. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc. , reported as 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1702 , has exhaustively surveyed the entire jurisprudence on
the subject and has held as under:-
“18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence on when
bail may be annulled or cancelled. Two
distinct categories have emerged in this
regard:
(A) Annulment of Bail due to legal infirmity in
the order; and
(B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e., revocation of
bail due to post-grant misconduct or
supervening circumstances.
(A). Annulment of bail orders
18.1. This refers to the appellate or revisional
power to set aside a bail order that is perverse,
unjustified, or passed in violation of settled
legal principles. It is concerned with defects
existing at the time the bail was granted,
without reference to subsequent conduct.
xxx
22.4. An order that overlooks material evidence or
proceeds on an erroneous premise is perverse,
and such perversity forms a valid ground for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
17/32
cancellation or setting aside of bail.”
24. The grounds on which bail already granted
may be cancelled were enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana ,
reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349 , in the following words:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so
granted, have to be considered and dealt with
on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for
an order directing the cancellation of the bail,
already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the
due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice or abuse of the concession granted to
the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of
the court, on the basis of material placed on
the record of the possibility of the accused
absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have
rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial
to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial. These principles, it appears, were lost
sight of by the High Court when it decided to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
18/32
cancell the bail, already granted. The High
Court, it appears to us, overlooked the
distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting
bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance
and the cancellation of bail already granted.”
25. The illustrative circumstances in which an
order granting bail may itself be set aside were summarized by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v.
State of U.P. & Anr. , reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559 , as under:-
“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of
supervening circumstances. This Court
certainly has inherent powers and discretion
to cancel the bail of an accused even in the
absence of supervening circumstances.
Following are the illustrative circumstances
where the bail can be cancelled :-
33.1 Where the court granting bail takes
into account irrelevant material of
substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant
material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail
overlooks the influential position of
the accused in comparison to the
victim of abuse or the witnesses
especially when there is prima facie
misuse of position and power over the
victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and
conduct of the accused is completely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
19/32
ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are
found in the order granting bail
thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not
appropriate in the first place given
the very serious nature of the
charges against the accused which
disentitles him for bail and thus
cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is
apparently whimsical, capricious and
perverse in the facts of the given
case. ” (emphasis supplied).
26. The distinction between the cancellation of
bail on account of supervening circumstances or misuse of
liberty, on the one hand, and the annulment or setting aside of an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail, on the other,
was lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. , reported as (2014) 16
SCC 508 , in the following words:-
“12. We have referred to certain principles to be
kept in mind while granting bail, as has been
laid down by this Court from time to time. It is
well settled in law that cancellation of bail
after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some supervening
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
20/32
circumstances warranting such cancellation
have occurred is in a different compartment
altogether than an order granting bail which is
unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case,
the relevant factors which should have been
taken into consideration while dealing with
the application for bail and have not been
taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant
of bail. Such a case belongs to a different
category and is in a separate realm. While
dealing with a case of second nature, the
Court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into
the justifiability and the soundness of the order
passed by the Court.” (emphasis supplied).
27. The position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr . ,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768 , in the following words:-
“27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical
manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse
order of bail is always open to interference by
the superior court. If there are serious
allegations against the accused, even if he has
not misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court that
has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked
by a superior court if it transpires that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
21/32
courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked
into the gravity of the offence or the impact
on the society resulting in such an order . In P
v. State of M.P. (2022) 15 SCC 211 decided by
a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored
by one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the
considerations that must weigh with the Court
for interfering in an order granting bail to an
accused under Section 439(1) CrPC in the
following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once
granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening circumstances
have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates
that it is no longer conducive to a fair
trial to permit him to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail
during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 . To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances,
this Court would be loathe to interfere
with an order passed by the court
below granting bail but if such an order
is found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is irrelevant,
then such an order is susceptible to
scrutiny and interference by the
appellate court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders.
28. The considerations that weigh with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
22/32
appellate court for setting aside the bail order
on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on the
part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting
in delaying the trial, any instance of threats
being extended to the witnesses while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner. We
may add that this list is only illustrative and
not exhaustive. However, the court must be
cautious that at the stage of granting bail,
only a prima facie case needs to be examined
and detailed reasons relating to the merits of
the case that may cause prejudice to the
accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to
state that the bail order should reveal the
factors that have been considered by the Court
for granting relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9
SCC 321, a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 CrPC is of wide amplitude
and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as
the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an
application for bail. But this discretion is not
unfettered. The order passed must reflect due
application of judicial mind following well-
established principles of law. In ordinary
course, courts would be slow to interfere with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
23/32
the order where bail has been granted by the
courts below. But if it is found that such an
order is illegal or perverse or based upon
utterly irrelevant material, the appellate
court would be well within its power to set
aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: Puran
v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338; Narendra K.
Amin v. State of Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC
584.”
28. From the aforequoted judgments, the
following positions of law emerge. Firstly , the cancellation of
bail already granted requires cogent and overwhelming
supervening circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty,
tampering with the evidence, intimidation of the witnesses or
evasion of justice, and cannot be founded upon a mere re-
appreciation of the material which was before the Court at the
time of the grant of bail. Secondly , the annulment, by the
superior Court, of an order granting bail which is illegal,
perverse, founded upon irrelevant considerations or passed in
ignorance of the relevant material, is concerned with the defects
existing at the time of the grant itself, and may be exercised
irrespective of any subsequent misconduct on the part of the
accused. It is upon this twofold touchstone that the present
application falls to be examined.
29. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
24/32
principles, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be sustained, for more reasons than one. The
impugned order rests upon two considerations alone, namely,
that the opposite party no.3 had remained in custody for about
fifteen days, and that the amount of the alleged bribe was very
low. Neither consideration is germane in law, or could be
considered to be reasonable and cogent reason to the grant of
bail in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and both,
singly and cumulatively, render the order perverse.
30. Insofar as the first consideration is
concerned, a custody of barely fifteen days, at a stage when the
investigation was still in progress and the charge was yet to be
framed, could not, by any standard, constitute a ground for
enlargement on bail of a public servant caught red-handed in a
trap with the tainted money, the recovery whereof stood
supported by the tallying of the numbers of the notes, the pink
colouration of the hand and pocket washes and, subsequently,
the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The grant
of bail, at such a nascent stage of the investigation, and on such
a ground, squarely falls within the circumstances enumerated in
Deepak Yadav (supra) , namely, where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds and where the grant of bail was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
25/32
appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the
charges.
31. Insofar as the second consideration is
concerned, the Court below fell in grave error in treating the
quantum of the alleged bribe as a mitigating circumstance. It is
well settled that corruption is not to be judged by the degree or
the amount involved, but by the very act itself, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public
servant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Niranjan
Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, reported as
(2013) 4 SCC 642 , as quoted with approval in Manoj Narula v.
Union of India , reported as (2014) 9 SCC 1 , and reiterated in
Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal (supra) has held
as under:-
“26. It can be stated without any fear of
contradiction that corruption is not to be
judged by degree, for corruption mothers
disorder, destroys societal will to progress,
accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the
conscience, jettisons the glory of the
institutions, paralyses the economic health of
a country, corrodes the sense of civility and
mars the marrows of governance. It is worth
noting that immoral acquisition of wealth
destroys the energy of the people believing in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
26/32
honesty, and history records with agony how
they have suffered. The only redeeming fact
is that collective sensibility respects such
suffering as it is in consonance with the
constitutional morality ” (emphasis supplied).
32. In this connection, it requires to be
emphasised, particularly in the context of a trap case, that the
gravity of an offence of corruption is not to be measured by the
rupee value of the bribe. What renders the offence grave is the
abuse of public office and the breach of the trust reposed by the
public in the holder of such office, and not the quantum of the
illegal gratification demanded or accepted. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. v. Ram
Singh , reported as (2000) 5 SCC 88 , described corruption as a
cancer and a plague, which is not only contagious but which, if
not nipped in the bud at the earliest, spreads like fire in a jungle
and corrodes the polity of the country. The gravity of the offence
of corruption is, therefore, tied to the nature of the wrong itself
and not to its quantum . Viewed thus, in a case such as the
present one, where a public servant has been caught red-handed
in a trap, the tainted money has been recovered from his person
in the presence of independent witnesses, and the washes of his
hands and of the pocket of his shirt have returned a positive
phenolphthalein test, the gravity of the offence flows from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
27/32
very demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, and it does matter whether the amount was small
or large.
33. Consistent with the aforesaid position, it is
settled under the scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 that the gratification need not be substantial in order to
attract the offence or the statutory presumption. No doubt, sub-
section (3) of Section 20 of the Act preserves a narrow
discretion in the trial Court to decline to draw the statutory
presumption where the gratification is, in its opinion, so trivial
that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn, but that is a
consideration which bears upon the drawing of the presumption
at the stage of trial and, at best, upon the question of sentence,
and has no bearing whatsoever upon the consideration of a
prayer for bail. In other words, while the quantum of the bribe is
not wholly irrelevant for all purposes, inasmuch as, it may bear
upon the sentence and upon the discretion under Section 20(3)
of the Act at the trial, the smallness of the bribe, standing alone,
is not a ground recognised in law for enlarging a public servant
on bail in a trap case, much less for elevating the same to a
primary reason for the grant of bail, as has been done in the
impugned order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
28/32
34. The factors recognized by law as relevant to
the consideration of a prayer for bail include, among others, the
nature and gravity of the accusation, as enumerated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. , reported as (2010) 14 SCC 496 , and
reiterated in Ajwar v. Waseem (supra) . In a trap case under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, such gravity flows from the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public
servant, standing prima facie established by the recovery of the
tainted money and the positive phenolphthalein test, and not
from the magnitude of the amount which changed hands. The
Court below, in treating the very low amount of the alleged
bribe as a reason for enlarging the opposite party no.3 on bail,
has, therefore, imported into its consideration a factor wholly
extraneous to the real measure of the seriousness of the offence.
It is well settled that where an order granting bail is founded
upon irrelevant material, or leaves the relevant material out of
account, the same cannot be sustained, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy , reported as (2013)
7 SCC 452 , and an unreasoned or misdirected order granting
bail always invites the interference of the superior Court, as held
in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. , reported as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
29/32
(2020) 2 SCC 118 . The very low amount reasoning of the Court
below is, therefore, not merely a weak reason, it is, in itself, a
consideration extraneous in law, which vitiates the impugned
order.
35. The impugned order further ignores the
relevant material available on record, namely, the transcript of
the recorded conversation, the pre-trap and post-trap
memoranda, the recovery of the tainted money from the person
of the opposite party no.3 in the presence of independent
witnesses, and the results of the hand and pocket washes, which,
prima facie , establish the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, constituting the sine qua non of the offence under
Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An
order which overlooks material evidence or proceeds on an
erroneous premise is perverse, as held in State of Karnataka v.
Sri Darshan (supra) , and such perversity forms a valid ground
for the setting aside of the bail.
36. The impugned order has also completely
overlooked the influential position of the opposite party no.3,
the Hospital Manager of the very institution in which the
petitioner-informant was engaged as a daily-wage ambulance
driver.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
30/32
37. This Court is conscious that the liberty of an
accused is not to be interfered with mechanically and that the
cancellation of bail is a matter of serious consequence.
However, where the order granting bail is perverse, founded
upon considerations which are irrelevant in law, and passed in
ignorance of the relevant material, the superior Court would be
failing in its duty if it declined to interfere. In cases of
corruption by public servants, the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) that over
solicitous homage to the liberty of the accused can, sometimes,
defeat the cause of justice.
38. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 is
perverse, founded upon considerations which are irrelevant in
law, namely, the period of custody and the smallness of the
amount of the bribe, while ignoring the relevant and weighty
material available on record, and suffers from complete non-
application of judicial mind, and therefore, the impugned order
cannot be sustained and the bail granted thereunder is liable to
be cancelled.
39. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
31/32
Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, in connection with
Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 of 2025, corresponding to Special
Case No.20 of 2025, is set aside and consequently, the regular
bail granted to the opposite party no.3, Vishwajeet Singh, is
hereby cancelled. The bail bonds furnished by him also stand
cancelled. The opposite party no.3 shall surrender before the
Court below within a period of three weeks from the date of this
order, failing which the A.D.G, Vigilance, Patna shall take all
necessary steps to arrest the opposite party no.3.
40. The Court below is directed to proceed with
the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible,
without being influenced by any observation made herein.
41 . At this stage, this Court deems it necessary
to record that impugned order not only suffers from infirmities
but serious judicial callousness. The Special Judge, Vigilance,
Muzaffarpur has passed an order which is contrary to his own
recorded fact emerging from the same order, which reflects
recklessness on his part.
42 . In these circumstances, the Office is directed
to forthwith send a copy of this order, along with the relevant
records, to Sri Dashrath Mishra, the then Special Judge
(Vigilance), Muzaffarpur, who shall submit his show cause,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74033 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
32/32
within four weeks from today and explain as to why appropriate
proceedings, including a recommendation for special judicial
training at the Bihar Judicial Academy in the light of the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Netsity Systems
(P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported as 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2079, be not initiated against him.
43 . The Show-cause must be filed by Sri
Dashrath Mishra, the then Special Judge (Vigilance),
Muzaffarpur within four weeks from today.
44 . List this case after five weeks under the
heading “For Orders” for consideration of show-cause.
45. It is made abundantly clear that the
observations made hereinabove are confined to the
consideration of the present application and shall not be
construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the
case, which shall be decided by the Trial Court uninfluenced by
the same.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026