GHMC official refuses hospital care, loses bail plea in corruption case
HYDERABAD: In a twist that shaped the court’s decision, a GHMC official accused in a Rs 35,000 bribery case refused to get admitted at Gandhi Hospital despite doctors advising immediate inpatient care, only to later cite deteriorating health as grounds for bail. Subsequently, the court denied bail.
The court found that the accused, Suryavamsi Santosh Kumar, 54, Examiner of Accounts at the GHMC’s Secunderabad Zonal Office, could not seek relief on medical grounds while having voluntarily declined the very treatment made available to him by the State. Kumar stands accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 35,000 from a retired GHMC employee whose pension benefit file was pending processing in the very office where he was posted.
Kumar, who worked in the Accounts and Audit Section of the Zonal Commissioner’s Office, GHMC, Secunderabad, was caught in the act on March 5, 2026, between 4:05 PM and 4:20 PM on the first floor of the Secunderabad Zonal Office in West Marredpally.
According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Kumar initially demanded a bribe of Rs. 40,000 from a retired GHMC employee to process a pending pension file. On the day of the sting operation, he accepted Rs. 35,000 and was immediately apprehended by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, City Range-II, Hyderabad. He was remanded to judicial custody at Chanchalguda Central Prison on March 6, 2026.
The accused, represented by advocates, filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail on March 10, 2026, within the first 15 days of remand. His counsel argued that the phenolphthalein test, a standard chemical test used to find bribe money on a person’s hands, was negative, and that the case diary did not have the main points needed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner counsel leaned heavily on health grounds. The accused, described as a chronic heart patient, had cardiac stents implanted in 2016 and again in 2025, and had also suffered a paralytic episode affecting his right hand, from which he reportedly recovered. The counsel argued that continued judicial custody posed a genuine threat to his life.
However, the court record showed an important detail that weakened the health argument. When the accused’s family visited him at Chanchalguda jail on March 7, 2026, they found out he had two heart tests after saying he had chest pain. The test results showed a heart problem, so he was quickly sent to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where doctors did more tests and told him to stay in the hospital right away.
The court noticed that the accused refused to stay in the hospital, saying he did not feel comfortable there. He was given medicine and sent back to Chanchalguda jail.
Surya Vamsi Santosh, Examiner, Account Section, GHMC of Secunderabad Zonal Office, Hyderabad district was caught red handed by Telangana #ACB officials, at his office, when he demanded the #bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/- and accepted Rs. 35,000/- from the complainant for doing an… pic.twitter.com/aP43sDbl65
— ACB Telangana (@TelanganaACB) March 5, 2026
The court stated that this was not a case in which medical attention had been withheld or denied. “It is not a case where no medical facilities were provided to the petitioner/accused officer,” the order stated. The court further noted that the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, remains legally obligated to ensure that the best available medical care is extended to all inmates in judicial custody. Against this backdrop, the court concluded that a mere apprehension of risk to life, advanced by an accused who had himself walked away from a government hospital despite medical advice, could not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
Beyond the medical issue, the court emphasized the serious and socio-economic nature of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court highlighted the power imbalance in this case, where a retired citizen seeking his lawful pension benefit was made vulnerable by the public servant responsible for processing his file.
The Special Public Prosecutor said that the investigation was still not finished. The main witness and other witnesses had not yet given their statements, and important documents still needed to be collected. The prosecution said that giving bail at this early stage could harm the investigation.
The court agreed and observed that there was a credible and well-founded risk that, if released, the accused could leverage his continuing position as a public servant to exert influence over the informant, potentially dissuading him from truthfully recording his statement before the investigating authorities. “The apprehension that once post-arrest bail is granted, the petitioner/accused officer may use his dominant position as a public servant to influence the will of the informant is not without basis,” the court held.
Taking into account the ongoing investigation, how serious the crime is, the risk that witnesses could be influenced, and the fact that the accused was offered good medical care but refused it, the court rejected the bail request.
