Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Reliance On Section 436-A But Declines To Cancel Bail In Jnaneshwari Express Trial

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging orders of the Calcutta High Court that had enlarged several accused on bail in connection with the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express. The appeals raised questions on the applicability of Section 436‑A CrPC, the interplay of Article 21 protection against prolonged incarceration, and the consequences of reverse burdens of proof in UAPA cases.

The Court held that Section 436‑A did not extend to offences for which death was a possible punishment and therefore the High Court erred in uniformly applying Section 436‑A to the offences charged. At the same time, the Court concluded that, on the facts and in view of systemic delay, interference with the liberty of the accused at this stage would not be justified and declined to direct their re‑detention. The Court issued detailed directions to expedite trial and to strengthen procedural safeguards in cases involving reverse burdens. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The use of the word ‘shall’ indicates a right bestowed upon the accused - an entitlement to be set at liberty and an obligation on part of the State to comply therewith; … This right, however is not unbridled, and the court may impose reasonable conditions such as a personal bond or sureties. At the same time, it is also permissible that this right or entitlement may be given a go‑by, if the Court concerned after hearing the prosecutor, records reasons, for continued detention beyond the half of the prescribed period; … This section also guarantees that in no circumstance can the detention of an undertrial exceed the maximum prescribed sentence for the offence for which he is being tried.”

Background The subject FIR arose from the derailment of Train No. 2102, Jnaneshwari Express on 28 May 2010 between Khemasuli and Sardiha, which caused the death of 148 persons and injuries to about 170. The CBI charged multiple accused with offences including Sections 120B, 302, 307 IPC, offences under the Railways Act and Sections 16/18 UAPA; certain counts attracted death as a possible sentence. Trial proceeded slowly: of 204 witnesses, 176 had been examined, and 28 still remained at the time of judgment. The High Court on 9 November 2022 granted bail to six accused and subsequently released additional accused relying in part on Section 436‑A CrPC and Article 21 considerations.

The CBI contended that Section 436‑A could not be applied uniformly to heinous offences or offences punishable by death and sought setting aside of the High Court orders. The respondents relied on Article 21 and prolonged incarceration to justify bail. The Supreme Court reviewed statutory text, precedent and constitutional principles. Noting prior authorities that Section 436‑A is a “wholesome beneficial provision” aimed at effectuating speedy trial, the Court found that the express exclusion for offences “for which the punishment of death has been specified” placed the present charges outside Section 436‑A’s ambit. The Court also reiterated that “rights of fairness, dignity and liberty apply to each and every prisoner, irrespective of the nature of offence,” but held that Article 21 could not be the sole consideration where national security and the grave impact of the offence were implicated. On the question of reverse burdens, the Court observed that prolonged incarceration under statutes imposing presumptions required courts and institutions to ensure meaningful access to defence, and issued directions to the trial court, High Courts and state authorities to expedite proceedings, ensure counsel for undertrials and prioritise older cases.

Final result: the appeals were allowed insofar as the High Court’s reliance on Section 436‑A was set aside; however, the Supreme Court declined to cancel the bail granted, observing that intervening delay and lack of adverse conduct by the accused did not justify curtailing liberty. The Court directed day‑to‑day trial handling, restrictions on adjournments, periodic reporting to the High Court, and administrative measures to improve disposal of UAPA cases and ensure legal aid for undertrials.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1418 Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General of India; Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Archit Krishna, Advocate; N. Sai Vinod, Advocate‑on‑Record