Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2035

SUPREME COURT OF INDA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Dayamoy Mahato Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5400-5401 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 12376-12377 of 2023), Criminal Appeal Nos. 5402-5403 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 12656-12657 of 2023) And Criminal Appeal No. 5404 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 2669 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanain, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Archit Krishna, Adv. Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR

Rights under Article 21 must be balanced against national security, especially for heinous offenses; bail is not automatically granted based solely on prolonged incarceration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 440, 212 - Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 150/151 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16/18 - Criminal conspiracy leading to train derailment causing extensive loss of life (148 deaths) and property (Rs. 25 crores) - High Court granted bail to accused, emphasizing rights under Article 21 and Section 436A of CrPC, which were not applicable to heinous offenses punishable by death - Supreme Court reversed bail grant, highlighting necessity to balance liberty against societal security concerns, emphasizing the impact of the crime on national integrity and public safety. (Paras 3.1, 11, 20, 25)

(B) Article 21 - Right to life and liberty - Must be balanced against state security, particularly in cases involving heinous offenses or threats to national integrity. (Paras 12, 15)

(C) Reverse Burden of Proof - Prosecution only needs to establish foundational facts; the accused must then rebut the presumption in their defense. (Paras 17)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 436-A - Inapplicable to offenses with maximum punishment of death; the accused can only claim relief under it if the offense is not of such nature. (Paras 8, 11)

Table of Content
1. factual background of train derailment case. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding bail and section 436-a. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. examination of section 436-a and its implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. article 21 rights and their application in bail cases. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. nature of reverse burden of proof in terrorism cases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. justifications for opposing bail based on the nature of the crime. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. conclusions and directions regarding trial efficiency. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

INDEX

THE APPEALS

ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 436-A CRPC

REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF

CURTAILING LIBERTY- JUSTIFIED?

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

Directions in personam

Directions in rem

Leave Granted.

THE APPEALS

2. The present Appeals have been preferred by the investigating agency against the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 9th November 2022 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No. 9431/2019 and CRM No. 407 of 2021 whereby the Respondent(s), six in number came to be released on bail, in connection with CBI Case No. RC4/S/2010¹[Hereinafter ‘Subject FIR’.] – Kol registered at P.S. CBI/SCB/Kolkata on 9th June 2010. Similarly, relying upon the very same order, the High Court vide order dated 28th February 2023 released eleven accused on bail in CRM (DB) 382 of 2023 and CRM (DB) 441 of 2023. Thereafter, one more accused came to be released on bail by the High Court vide order dated 13th June 2023 in CRM (DB) 2229 of 2023.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

3. The backdrop in which the High Court granted bail to the accused respondents in the lead matter, which is the principal judgment under challenge before us, is narrated succinctly as follows:

3.1 The subject FIR came to be registered on 9th June 2010 against unknown persons relating to the unfortunate derailment of Train No. 2102, Jnaneshwari Express, on 28th May 2010 while passing between Khemasuli and Sardiha railway stations, resulting in the untimely death of 148 persons and injury to 170 persons. The motive behind the crime allegedly stemmed from the deployment of a joint force of State Police and Central Paramilitary Force in the jurisdiction of Jhargram Police Station to combat the capture of Rasua village by the Maoists.

3.2 As per the chargesheet, police investigation revealed that the accused persons with the common intention to pressurize the Government to withdraw the Joint Forces from the Jhargram Police Station area and create terror, hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, caused damage to the railway tracks near Rajabandh. The conspiracy was carried out on the intervening night of 27th-28th May 2010 by the accused persons. The pandral clips of the railway tracks were removed, with the knowledge and intention that grievous hurt would be caused to the passengers of a train. This action caused the derailment of the train, which thereafter collided with an oncoming goods train from the opposite direction, causing widespread loss to life.

3.3 Along with loss of life and grievous injuries to persons, a loss of 25 crores approx was caused to the Government due to the destruction of property. The investigation revealed the role of the accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, as follows:

Accused Person	Role
Dayamoy Mahato	A railway employee who was receiving and making calls to the accused persons, leading up to the incident.
Mantu Mahato	Investigation of his mobile records revealed that he was constantly in touch with the co- accused persons on the intervening night of the incident.
Laxman Mahato	Telephonic conversations revealed he was at the spot of the damaged railway tracks, before the incident. Upon search of his house, his mobile records revealed that he was constantly in touch with the main accused, Manoj Mahato, and other accu