Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dayamoy Mahato
Background
The case arose from the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express in West Bengal, allegedly caused by sabotage of the railway track by Maoist sympathisers protesting the deployment of security forces in the area, killing about 148 people and injuring 170 others. The accused persons (charged under the IPC (including Section 302, murder) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)) were granted bail by the Calcutta High Court after roughly a dozen years in custody, on the basis of Section 436-A CrPC (a cap on undertrial detention) and their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, since the trial begun in 2010 still had many witnesses left to examine 15 years later. The CBI, as investigating agency, appealed against the grant of bail to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 436-A CrPC (and its equivalent under the new BNSS) does not apply here because the accused faced charges carrying a possible death sentence, so the High Court had erred in relying on it for that reason. However, on the separate ground of Article 21 (prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial), the Court held that even in grave offences such as this one, individual liberty must be weighed against the gravity of the crime, and where trial delays are not attributable to the accused, prolonged pre-trial detention (here, over a decade) can itself justify bail. Finding no evidence that the accused had misused their liberty during the years they were out on bail, and no real threat of absconding, the Court declined to cancel the bail, while clarifying the High Court's legal error on Section 436-A. The Court also issued detailed directions, both specific to this case and general directions applicable nationwide ("in rem"), for expediting UAPA trials, including day-to-day hearings, minimising adjournments, periodic monitoring by High Courts, and ensuring undertrials have access to legal aid.
Lesson Learnt
Even in serious cases involving offences that could attract the death penalty, prolonged pre-trial detention without a realistic prospect of a speedy trial can violate an undertrial's constitutional right to liberty under Article 21, but this protection operates independently of statutory bail-limitation provisions like Section 436-A CrPC, which do not apply where death is a possible punishment.