Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005400-005401 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 27175/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 28 May 2010 Jnaneshwari Express was derailed near Rajabandh, causing 148 deaths and 170 injuries. CBI FIR (9 June 2010) charged multiple accused under IPC §§ 120B, 302, 307, 323–326, 440, 212; Indian Railways Act §§ 150/151; UAPA §§ 16/18. Trial commenced, 176 of 204 witnesses examined. Bail rejected in 2016 with directive to conclude remaining evidence in one year; by November 2022 still 68 witnesses remained. High Court granted bail under CrPC § 436-A and Article 21; CBI appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts faced with bail applications under Section 436-A CrPC and reverse-burden statutes |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and the Supreme Court in future bail and pretrial detention cases |
| Overrules | High Court interpretation extending Section 436-A CrPC to death-penalty offences |
| Distinguishes | Applicability of Section 436-A CrPC to offences punishable by death |
| Follows | Supreme Court bail jurisprudence balancing Article 21 rights and state interest; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary on CrPC § 436-A |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 436-A CrPC explicitly excludes offences for which death is a prescribed punishment, including UAPA-terrorism charges.
- Reaffirms that Article 21 bail protections require a balance between individual liberty and national security; not an absolute “right to bail” in heinous cases.
- Emphasises that statutes with reverse burden (UAPA § 43-E) compel courts to issue robust directions for expeditious trial, day-to-day hearing and minimal adjournments.
- Confirms that extreme trial delay and lack of misuse of bail can justify continuance of bail despite gravity of offence, absent risk of absconding or witness tampering.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Text: Section 436-A CrPC “shall” apply only to offences not punishable by death; plain-text exclusion.
- Article 21 Balance: While speedy trial is a constitutional imperative, individual liberty must be weighed against public order and national security in grave offences.
- Reverse Burden Fairness: For UAPA offences imposing presumption of guilt (Section 43-E), courts must ensure meaningful access to defence through expedited procedural measures.
- Bail Interference Criteria: An appeal against bail must focus on perverse exercise of discretion, illegality or failure to consider core factors—seriousness, delay, risk of absconding, witness tampering.
- Outcome: High Court’s extension of CrPC § 436-A to death offences set aside; bail left undisturbed due to prolonged delay, absence of abuse, and no supervening circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (CBI)
- High Court misapplied CrPC § 436-A to offences punishable by death.
- Heinous nature and mass loss of life warrant refusal of bail.
- Risk of absconding and witness intimidation due to gravity of offences.
Respondents (Accused)
- Article 21’s right to speedy trial and prevention of prolonged detention.
- Over decade in custody; trial severely delayed.
- No evidence of bail misuse, absconding or witness tampering.
Factual Background
A CBI FIR dated 9 June 2010 charged unknown persons after the derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express on 28 May 2010 near Khemasuli–Sardiha, killing 148 and injuring 170. Six respondents were later arrested and charged under IPC §§ 120B, 302, 307, 323–326, 440, 212; Indian Railways Act §§ 150/151; UAPA §§ 16/18. The trial began, but by November 2022 only 136 of 204 witnesses had been examined. A 2016 bail plea was rejected with a one-year completion directive; delays persisted. The High Court granted bail on CrPC § 436-A and Article 21 grounds, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- CrPC § 436-A: Undertrial imprisoned half of maximum sentence (< death-penalty offences) “shall” be released on personal bond; court may record reasons to continue detention.
- BNSS § 479: Mirrors CrPC § 436-A with additional first-time-offender bond provision.
- UAPA § 43-E: Reverse burden of proof for terrorist acts; accused must rebut presumption after foundational facts established.
- Constitution Art. 21: Guarantees “life and personal liberty,” including fair and speedy trial; undertrials cannot face undue detention.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded beyond the joint judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Day-to-Day Trials: Directions for continuous hearing for reverse-burden offences.
- Progress Reports: Four-weekly reporting by trial court to High Court’s Administrative Judge.
- Special Court Resources: High Courts to assess and designate adequate special/sessions courts and prosecutors for UAPA-type cases.
- Case Listing: Matters to be listed in chronological order of registration, prioritising the oldest pending cases.
- Legal Aid: State Legal Services Authorities to ensure prompt assignment of counsel to undertrials in reverse-burden cases.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court’s extension of CrPC § 436-A to death-penalty offences overturned.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Article 21 bail balancing jurisprudence upheld.