Logo
Court Book - India Code App - Play Store

advertisement

Supreme Court Flags Serious Lapses but Lets Jnaneshwari Express Accused Stay on Bail, Sets Tough Directions for UAPA Trials

Vivek G.

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dayamoy Mahato & Others, Supreme Court upholds bail in the Jnaneshwari Express case but rebukes delays, issues strict directions for faster UAPA trials and judicial monitoring.

Supreme Court Flags Serious Lapses but Lets Jnaneshwari Express Accused Stay on Bail, Sets Tough Directions for UAPA Trials

In a packed courtroom on Thursday morning, the Supreme Court delivered a sharply-worded but balanced judgment in the long-pending Jnaneshwari Express derailment case. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, acknowledged the “catastrophic loss of life” yet declined to send the accused-already on bail for over three years-back to jail. The Court instead focused heavily on systemic delays and issued sweeping directions to improve the handling of UAPA cases.

हिंदी में पढ़ें

Background

The case stems from the horrific 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express near West Bengal’s Sardiha station, which killed 148 passengers. According to the CBI, the derailment was not an accident but a sabotage linked to a wider extremist conspiracy.
The accused-several of whom were local residents-were charged under the IPC, Railways Act, and the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Many spent around 12 years in custody before the Calcutta High Court granted bail in 2022 and 2023.

Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Case Against Dhanlaxmi Electricals, Slams NCLAT for Ignoring

When the CBI challenged these bail orders, the matter finally reached the Supreme Court in 2025. By then, 176 out of 204 witnesses had been examined, but 28 still remained, reflecting what the bench later described as the “glacial pace” of the trial.

Court’s Observations

The hearing was intense, with the bench repeatedly questioning why a 2010 case was still dragging. Justice Karol did not mince words: “If the State, despite all its might, presumes guilt, then the same State must ensure that trials conclude with meaningful speed.”

Section 436-A CrPC Not Applicable

The Court first clarified that the High Court misapplied Section 436-A (which mandates bail for undertrials who have spent half the maximum sentence in custody). Since offences here carry a possible death penalty, that section simply does not apply. “On this count,” the bench said, “the judgment requires interference.”

Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses NCDC's Tax Deduction Claim, Says Dividend and Deposit Interest

Article 21 Still Matters, but Not Alone

Interestingly, the Court did not stop there. It noted that liberty cannot be ignored even in national security cases, but also cautioned that Article 21 “cannot be the sole ground” for release. The bench observed, “Individual liberty, though sacrosanct, is subject to just exceptions-sovereignty, security and public order.”

Reverse Burden Under UAPA

The Court took an unusually reflective tone while discussing the reverse burden of proof under UAPA. It acknowledged how difficult it is for undertrials, especially from poor backgrounds, to gather evidence while in custody. “A democracy must ensure the accused are meaningfully equipped to prove innocence,” the bench remarked.

Read also:- Supreme Court Replaces Arbitrator After Missed Deadline, Says Mandate Ended Automatically

Why Bail Was Ultimately Not Cancelled

Despite finding faults in the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court refused to revoke bail-mainly because:

  • the accused have not misused liberty for over three years,
  • the State could not show any witness intimidation or delay caused by them,
  • and the trial is nowhere close to completion even after 15 years.

“The lapse of time has extinguished some grounds,” the Court noted, adding that re-jailing them now would serve no constructive purpose.

Decision

The Court set aside the High Court’s reasoning but allowed the bail to continue. It then issued strong directions to trial courts and High Courts to ensure UAPA cases move faster-day-to-day hearings, restricted adjournments, periodic monitoring, and mandatory legal-aid access for undertrials. The judgment concluded with a clear warning: delays cannot become a silent ground for indefinite incarceration.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dayamoy Mahato & Others

Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12376–12377 of 2023, 12656–12657 of 2023, and 2669 of 2024 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Bail Challenge in UAPA & IPC Offences)

Decision Date: 11 December 2025

Advertisment