NEW DELHI: Drawing a clear exception to the principle of “bail, not jail”, the Supreme Court has held that while an accused person’s right to life and personal liberty must be protected, it cannot by itself justify the grant of bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) that involve threats to national security and integrity.
The ruling came while the court was hearing the CBI’s appeal against a Calcutta High Court order granting bail to accused persons involved in the removal of railway tracks that led to the derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express and its collision with a goods train on June 9, 2010. The incident claimed 148 lives and left 170 others injured.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh said that “individual liberty is not absolute” and is subject to “just exceptions”, namely the paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and the integrity of the nation.
“The scales of Lady Justice must balance, on the one hand, the constitutionally enshrined and zealously guarded right under Article 21, and on the other, its just exceptions,” the bench observed.
Writing the judgment, Justice Karol said certain cases, by their very nature and consequences, require a much broader perspective, particularly where national security is at stake. The court noted that the derailment was allegedly carried out by Maoist cadres to pressure the government into withdrawing a joint deployment of state police and central paramilitary forces in the Jhargram region. Besides the loss of life and injuries, the attack caused damage to public property estimated at around ₹25 crore.
The bench underlined that every citizen has a constitutional right to protest against government policies within the bounds of law. However, it said barbaric acts such as sabotaging railway tracks—leading to the deaths of nearly 150 unsuspecting passengers—cannot be justified or excused.
The court also rejected the plea that the accused were entitled to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC (earlier IPC reference corrected), which allows release of undertrial prisoners who have served more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence. The bench pointed out that terror-related offences can attract the death penalty, and therefore, 12 years of incarceration cannot be a valid ground for bail under this provision.
At the same time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the reverse burden placed on the accused under UAPA to prove their innocence. It directed trial courts to ensure that all documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused, enabling them to prepare an effective defence and attempt to establish their innocence.
Given that the case is over 15 years old, the bench ordered an expeditious trial.
