Supreme Court Settles Law on Section 436-A CrPC and Bail in UAPA Cases

The Supreme Court of India heard the appeal by the CBI, against the order passed by the Calcutta High Court under Section 436-A CrPC, and settled the law on the application of Section 436-A CrPC, thereby clarified that Section 436-A CrPC is inapplicable to offenses punishable by death. The Court further issued nationwide directions for monitoring UAPA cases and supporting accused persons under reverse burden of proof regimes.

Case Background: The case is stemmed from the catastrophic derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express on May 28, 2010, which resulted in 148 deaths and 170 injuries, wherein, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pushed charges against the respondents/accused, stating that the accused acted upon with common intention to pressure the government into withdrawing joint security forces from Maoist-affected areas, and conspired to remove railway track fasteners (pandrol clips). The accused were also charged under various provisions of the IPC (including murder), the Railways Act, and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Considering the fact that the accused spend twelve years in custody with the trial still pending, the Calcutta High Court enlarged the respondents on bail in 2022 and 2023, and cited the beneficial provisions of Section 436-A CrPC and the right to liberty under Article 21.

The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional and procedural law and allowed the appeal partially and held that the Section 436A CrPC as inapplicable since the respondents were facing charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, both of which carry the death penalty, and concluded that the Calcutta High Court's reliance on the "one-half of maximum imprisonment" rule was legally erroneous.

On the intersection of Article 21 and national security, the Supreme Court observed that while the right to a speedy trial is sacrosanct, individual liberty is not absolute and must be balanced against paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty, and integrity. The Court further noted that the High Court erred in treating Article 21 as the "sole ground" for bail in a case involving acts of "barbarity" and mass casualties.

A profound portion of the judgment addressed the "reverse burden of proof" under UAPA. The Apex Court observed that when the State presumes guilt, it must also meaningfully equip the accused to reclaim their innocence by ensuring access to evidence and effective legal aid.

The Apex Court described delay in such cases as "insidious" noting that an accused's liberty should not be held hostage to "clogged dockets" and "overworked judges".

The Apex Court, however, critiqued the High Court’s reliance on Article 21 to grant bail in the heinous Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, it ultimately refused to cancel the bail due to the "glacial pace" of a 15-year trial and the accused’s 12-year prior incarceration. The judgment further issued nationwide directions for monitoring UAPA cases and supporting accused persons under reverse burden of proof regimes.

Ultimately, citing the "glacial pace" of the trial—which began in 2010 and still had 28 witnesses remaining in 2025, despite finding the High Court’s initial reasoning flawed, the Supreme Court refused to send the respondents back to prison —and the fact that the respondents had not misused their liberty in the three years since being released on bail. To address systemic delays, the Court issued directions in rem, requiring High Courts to monitor pending UAPA cases and ensure that special courts are sufficiently staffed and functional.

Coram: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL AND JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH.