Supreme Court: While considering an appeal preferred by CBI challenging Calcutta High Court’s decision of releasing the 6 Respondents (accused persons) on bail in connection to offences concerning the derailment of Jnaneswari Express on 28-5-2010; the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., emphasised Court’s responsibility in aiding an accused to prove their innocence given that Section 43-E UAPA imposes a reverse burden for poof on the accused and thus issued the following sets of directions:
Directions in personam:
(a) The Trial Court shall take stock of the matter and record in its order, the status thereof and the reasons for the trial having remained pending for many years, prior to the matter having been taken up after this judgment.
(b) The matter shall be taken up on a day-to-day basis
(c) Granting of adjournments shall be eschewed unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
(d) The Court requested the Administrative Judge of the High Court, as nominated by the Chief Justice, to seek a report, every four weeks, from the Trial Judge and ensure that the directions are being complied with.
Directions in rem
The State Legal Services Authority shall take steps to make aware each undertrial of his right to representation, either by counsel of their own choice or through a legal aid counsel.
The Court requested the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to:
(a) To examine the number of cases pending within their States under laws such as the UAPA, posing a reverse burden of proof on the accused
(b) To ascertain the number of special courts designated to try the said offences, and if special courts have not been designated, the number of Sessions courts dealing with matters under these legislations and to take up the matter with the appropriate authority if it is found that they are not sufficient
(c) To discern, whether posting of judicial officers in these courts as also staffing is sufficient, thereby foreclosing a ground for delay and adjournment, and if not, then suitable order for posting be issued expeditiously;
The Court further directed that:
-
The list prepared in accordance with (a) shall be organised in order of case registered, to the extent possible and permissible, from the earliest to latest. Requisite directions be issued to the special courts/sessions courts to take up the matters registered earliest, first, unless otherwise warranted.
-
In consultation with the appropriate authority, the High Court to ascertain the position with respect to appointment/allotment of prosecutors/special public prosecutors, as may be applicable, to ensure that the matters, once taken up, are not further delayed on that count;
-
For those cases that have been pending for more than five years, the concerned court be directed to take stock of the situation as and when they are taken up, record detailed order taking note of the previous reasons for adjournment if available, refrain from granting adjournments on routine requests and take up the matter on a day-to-day basis.
-
The High Court concerned will periodically, seek reports from the concerned Courts dealing with these matters and take up issues that may be confronting the said courts, on the administrative side so as to ensure smooth functioning.
Background:
In June 2010 FIR was filed against unknown persons relating to the unfortunate derailment of Train No. 2102, Jnaneswari Express, 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. The charge-sheet stated 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. Along with loss of life and grievous injuries to persons, a loss of 25 crores was caused to the Government due to the destruction of property.
Trial commenced against all the 6 accused persons. Charges were brought under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 440, 212 of the IPC; Sections 150/151 of the Railways Act, 1989, and Sections 16/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). As on date, 176 out of 204 witnesses have been examined by the Trial Court.
The accused persons had earlier applied for regular bail in 2016 which was disposed of in March of that year rejecting their prayer, but at the same time directing that the examination of the remaining witnesses should be completed within a year and that all steps needed to be taken by the Trial Court to ensure the same. The same could not be achieved, hence, the accused persons filed for bail before the High Court. On the date of the impugned order i.e., 9-11-2022, 68 witnesses remained to be examined. At present, 28 witnesses are yet to be examined.
Aggrieved with the bail granted to the accused persons, the CBI knocked the doors of the Supreme Court.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court stated that four vital aspects warrant consideration of the Court in this matter:
-
Firstly, whether in view of Section 436-A of the CrPC, the accused persons ought to have been released on bail?
-
In any event, did the prolonged incarceration of the accused warrant their release on bail, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution?
-
In cases arising out of statutes that impose a reverse burden of proof, whether the safeguards already in place, are made sufficiently available and effectively feasible, giving the accused persons a chance at establishing innocence?
-
Whether interference with the liberty of the accused, in the facts and circumstances, at this stage, would be justified?
Analysing the afore-stated issues, the Court stated that all of the accused persons are being tried for offences such as Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA. For these offences, one of the possible punishments prescribed is death. That, in and of itself, excludes these offences from the ambit of Section
On the application of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court noted that the High Court’s approach was is fallacious, and the impugned orders would, to that extent warrant interference. However, the Court did examine the issue independently. Reiterating the jurisprudence of Article 21, the Court pointed out that in this case, the loss of lives and public property has been immense along with a grave impact upon the lives of the people connected to those who have died as a consequence or have been injured because of the ulterior motives in carrying out this alleged offence against the State. “It is this grave and serious impact that has to be balanced against the guarantees of Article 21, for these offences by whomsoever committed strike at the nation’s security and are an effort to undermine its sovereign authority. The Courts are duty bound to scrutinise claims for bails in such cases with heightened but fair-minded vigilance”. The Court therefore observed that that while Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however,in cases where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, that cannot be the sole ground of consideration.The act of the accused persons must be looked at on the whole, and all relevant factors must be given due consideration while granting or denying bail. Any Court seized of bail application(s) arising out of such offences must record, in their order the reasons and factors that weighed with them in the ultimate outcome.
On the issue of reverse burden of proof, the Court emphasised that essentially means that at the outset of trial, the prosecution is only required to establish certain foundational facts. Once these foundational facts are established, the presumption of guilt kicks in and the accused then is to dispel/rebut the presumption in order to establish innocence, as opposed to the ordinary standards where a prosecution is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is only to poke sufficient holes therein, to bring in the possibility of him not having committed the act in question. The Court pointed out that one of the main charges against the accused persons is under the UAPA for having committed a terrorist act. Since this legislation provides for the procedure to deal with, and consequences of such act, it imposes a reverse burden for poof on the accused as per Section 43-E thereof. The Court also highlighted that given the shifting of burden on the accused to prove their innocence in such cases, there is a burden on the Courts as well to make it possible for them to do so. It is here that the role of the judiciary becomes significant. The Court stated that delay is an un-ignorable reality of the Indian criminal adjudication system which on its own raises significant issues, but when this delay is in cases such as the UAPA, where a reverse burden of proof is in place, it acquires a qualitatively different, and more insidious, character. “The institutions of justice must, therefore, act not as passive observers but as active guarantors of fairness: ensuring real access to counsel, enabling effective preparation of defence, and preventing the presumption from hardening into an irreversible verdict long before the trial ends. Therefore, the Court issued the afore-stated directions”.
On the issue of curtailing liberty, the Court noted that act of the accused persons which caused a huge loss of life and damaged the public property is a compelling indicator against them being released on bail. Court noted that despite the gravity of the circumstances, the High Court granted bail to the accused persons, which ought not to have been granted. The rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation’s interest, the High Court fell in error in granting bail.
Decision:
However, the Court explained that it does not interfere against the grant of bail unless circumstances warranting such an exercise of power are plainly present in a given set of circumstances. Thus, the Court opined that interfering with the liberty of the accused persons, at this stage, particularly when nothing else holds against them, would not be justified as the CBI could not bring to notice subsequent development which would justify this interference as serving any fruitful purpose.
[CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2775, decided on 11-12-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General of India, and Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Counsel, who appeared for the Appellant.
The Respondent(s), accused persons, were heard through Mr. Archit Krishna, Advocate, and Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advocate-on-Record.
