JUDGMENT :

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 are languishing in custody for more than 12 years and the petitioner no.5 had already suffered incarceration for about 11 years 9 months. While rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for bail lastly on 30th March, 2016 the Court expressed its desire that examination of remaining 154 witnesses should be completed within a year and the learned trial court was directed to take all steps to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. In spite of such direction there was no substantive progress in the trial and as on date 68 witnesses are yet to be examined and as such, there is no possibility towards conclusion of the trial in the near future.

2. He submits that the petitioners had been roped in on the basis of suspicion and arrested immediately after the alleged offence. The petitioner no.2 was granted ad interim bail by the learned trial Court on 18th November, 2019 and he did not misuse his liberty. Investigation is complete and charges had been framed way back in the year 2012. The long pendency of the trial justifies the petitioners’ prayer for bail on the anvil of delay. There is no perception of threat towards tampering of evidence in the event he is granted bail and there is also no possibility that he would abscond. It is not a case that the petitioners’ prayer for bail before this Court was repeated on numerous occasions. Two accused persons, namely, Asit Mahato and Bimal Mahato, similarly situated with the petitioners, have already been granted bail.

3. Mr. Roy argues that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial would not be in consonance with the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in the said conspectus, further detention of the petitioners is not warranted. In support of his arguments, Mr. Roy has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386, Asim Vs. NIA, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 695 and an unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jahir Hak Vs. State of Rajasthan.

4. Mr. Roy submits that different coordinate Benches of this Court had granted bail in cases involving death penalty and provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (in short, UAPA, Act). In support of such argument, he placed reliance upon unreported orders passed in the cases of Dhriti Ranjan Mahato [CRM 6233 of 2021], Ramasi Hansda [CRM (DB) 2389 of 2022], Indrajit Karmakar alias Khudu & Others [ CRM 374 of 2020], Prasanta Patra [CRM (DB) 2050 of 2022] and Akhil Chandra Ghosh Vs. State [CRM 8869 of 2020].

5. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing for the CBI submits that the investigation has clearly revealed that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities and to cause loss to human lives and property, the petitioners and the other co-accused persons had damaged the railway track by removing the pandrol clips which resulted in the death of 148 persons and injury of 170 persons. For the said incident the Government had also incurred a loss of about Rs.29 crores. Considering the manner in which the offence has taken place and its gravity, the petitioners’ prayer for bail needs to be refused as their liberty would be a menace to the society.

6. Drawing our attention to several documents in the case diary, Mr. Mohanty has argued that the petitioners were trained by Dayamoy Mahato for removing the pandrol clips. The CDRs of the mobile phones seized in course of investigation would clearly reveal the direct involvement of the petitioners. Audio clips pertaining to such conversations had also been exhibited which stand supported by the forensic report.

7. Mr. Mohanty submits that out of total 245 witnesses only 60 witnesses remain to be examined and as