Bail granted on the sole grounds of short custody and low bribe amount is perverse and unsustainable.

The petitioner (a daily-wage ambulance driver) filed a complaint alleging that the Opposite Party No. 3 (Hospital Manager, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur) demanded a bribe of ₹4,000 to release pending wages

A Vigilance Investigation Bureau trap was conducted on 19.05.2025, during which OP No. 3 was caught red-handed with tainted G.C. notes, and hand/pocket washes tested positive for phenolphthalein

The Special Judge, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur, granted regular bail to OP No. 3 on 04.06.2025—just 15 days after remand—observing that while the act was "not tolerable," the custody period was sufficient and the bribe amount was "very low"

Post-bail, OP No. 3 was reinstated and eventually re-posted to the same hospital where the incident occurred

The petitioner sought cancellation of this bail under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023

The court applied the distinction between "cancellation of bail" (due to post-grant misconduct) and "annulment of bail" (due to legal infirmity in the original order) as settled in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan

It relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. to establish that bail is susceptible to scrutiny if it ignores the gravity of the offense or is based on irrelevant material.

Regarding corruption, the court applied the principle from Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra and State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, which dictates that corruption is not judged by "degree" or "quantum" but by the breach of public trust.

The High Court found the lower court’s reasoning fundamentally flawed. It held that a 15-day custody period was insufficient for a public servant caught red-handed, especially while the investigation was nascent and charges were not yet framed

Critically, the court ruled that treating a bribe amount as "very low" is an irrelevant and extraneous consideration in law; the gravity of corruption stems from the abuse of office, not the rupee value

By granting bail on these "untenable grounds," the lower court overlooked prima facie evidence, including recorded conversations and FSL reports, and ignored the potential for the accused—as a Hospital Manager—to influence witnesses

The court characterized the impugned order as a reflection of "serious judicial callousness" and "recklessness"

The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order dated 04.06.2025, and cancelled the bail of Opposite Party No. 3. OP No. 3 was directed to surrender within three weeks. Additionally, the court issued a show-cause notice to the concerned Special Judge (Sri Dashrath Mishra) to explain the judicial impropriety and directed that he may be recommended for special judicial training.