Bail for heinous offences under UAPA and IPC : Supreme Court issues 7 directions in rem

Supreme Court Upholds Bail for Accused in Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case Apex Court emphasizes balance between individual liberty and national security, upholding bail for accused in tragic train derailment case.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the bail granted to the accused in the Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, reiterating the delicate balance between individual rights and national security. The case, which dates back to May 28, 2010, involved the tragic derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express resulting in the death of 148 people and injuries to 170 others. The apex court's decision comes as a response to the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the bail granted by the Calcutta High Court to the accused, including Dayamoy Mahato and others, involved in the alleged conspiracy.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered the judgment on December 11, 2025. The court examined the applicability of Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which limits the detention period of undertrial prisoners, and concluded that the section does not apply to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. However, the court emphasized the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, especially in prolonged incarceration cases.

The judgment highlighted that while the accused are charged under serious offences, including those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prolonged detention without trial was a critical factor in upholding the bail. The court noted that the trial, which commenced in 2010, had seen significant delays, with 28 witnesses still unexamined, despite directions for expedited proceedings.

The Supreme Court stressed the need for the justice system to act as a guarantor of fairness, particularly in cases involving a reverse burden of proof, such as those under UAPA. The court directed trial courts to expedite proceedings on a day-to-day basis, minimize adjournments, and ensure that undertrial prisoners have meaningful access to legal representation.

In its directions, the court also urged High Courts and state authorities to address systemic inefficiencies in handling UAPA cases, emphasizing the need for adequate judicial staffing and timely appointments of prosecutors to prevent further delays.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties while ensuring that national security concerns are adequately addressed. The ruling is a reminder of the constitutional mandate to balance the rights of the accused with the broader interests of justice and public order.

Bottom Line:

Grant of bail for heinous offences under UAPA and IPC involving loss of life and public property, evaluated under Article 21 of the Constitution, Section 436A CrPC, and reverse burden of proof. Court balances individual liberty against national security interests.

Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 16/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 120B, 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 440, 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 150/151 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.

Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820773