Legal Review and Analysis of Central Bureau of Investigation vs Dayamoy Mahato & Ors 2025 INSC 1418
Case Synopsis
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato & Ors. (2025 INSC 1418)
Bail in Reverse Burden Cases, Prolonged Incarceration & the Constitutional Balance
Synopsis: The Supreme Court examined whether accused persons charged under stringent laws like the UAPA and IPC for the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express train sabotage (148 deaths) could be granted bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. While clarifying that Section 436-A CrPC does not apply where death is a possible punishment, the Court balanced Article 21 rights against national security concerns, upheld the bail already granted (due to no misuse of liberty), and issued sweeping directions to expedite trials in reverse burden cases.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1418
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2025
2. Related Laws & Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 440, 212
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Sections 16, 18
Indian Railways Act, 1989: Sections 150, 151
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Sections 436-A, 313
Constitution of India: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
3. Judgment Details
A. Facts of the Case
On May 28, 2010, the Jnaneshwari Express was derailed between Khemasuli and Sardiha stations after railway tracks were sabotaged, causing 148 deaths and 170 injuries.
CBI registered the case (RC-4/S/2010) alleging conspiracy by Maoist sympathizers to pressure the government to withdraw joint security forces.
Charges were framed under IPC, UAPA, and Railways Act.
The accused (Dayamoy Mahato and others) were in custody for over 12 years by 2022; trial was delayed with 176 out of 204 witnesses examined.
The Calcutta High Court granted them bail in November 2022, citing prolonged incarceration under Article 21 and Section 436-A CrPC.
CBI appealed to the Supreme Court against the bail orders.
B. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether Section 436-A CrPC (maximum detention period for undertrials) applies to offences where death is a possible punishment?
Whether prolonged incarceration solely under Article 21 can override gravity of offences like terrorism?
Whether the reverse burden of proof under UAPA creates additional hurdles for undertrials in securing bail?
Whether bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled given the heinous nature of the crime?
C. Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning)
On Section 436-A CrPC: The Court held it does not apply to offences where death or life imprisonment is a prescribed punishment. Since the accused were charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA, they were excluded from its benefit.
On Article 21 & Prolonged Incarceration: While Article 21 guarantees speedy trial and protects against indefinite detention, it cannot be the sole ground in cases involving national security and mass casualties. The Court emphasized balancing individual liberty with societal interest and security of the state.
On Reverse Burden of Proof (UAPA): The Court acknowledged the severe disadvantage faced by undertrials in disproving guilt under reverse burden statutes. It stressed the state’s duty to ensure effective legal aid, timely evidence access, and expeditious trials to make such a burden fair.
On Cancellation of Bail: Despite the gravity of the offence, the Supreme Court refused to cancel bail because:
(i) The accused had been on bail since 2022 without misuse (no witness tampering, no fleeing).
(ii) Trial delays were not attributable to the accused.
(iii) Cancellation at this stage would serve no fruitful purpose.
4. Core Principle & Analysis
The Dual Imperative – National Security vs. Undertrial Rights in Reverse Burden Regimes
The Supreme Court navigated the tension between harsh anti-terror laws and fundamental rights. It made three key clarifications:
Statutory Limits of Section 436-A: The provision is a remedial tool, not an absolute right. It deliberately excludes offences against the state to prevent its misuse in grave cases.
Article 21 is Not Absolute in Security Cases: While undertrials cannot be punished before conviction, national security and public safety can curtail liberty. Courts must weigh the nature, gravity, and impact of the offence.
Systemic Responsibility in Reverse Burden Cases: If the law presumes guilt, the state must empower the accused to rebut it—through speedy trials, competent legal aid, and judicial monitoring.
5. Final Outcome & Directions
Appeal Partly Allowed: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s reasoning on Section 436-A and Article 21 but upheld the bail granted to the accused.
Directions Issued:
(A) In Personam (for this case):
Trial to proceed day-to-day with minimal adjournments.
High Court to monitor progress every four weeks.
(B) In Rem (for all similar cases):
High Courts to audit pendency of UAPA/reverse burden cases.
Ensure adequate special courts, judges, and prosecutors.
Prioritise oldest cases for trial.
Legal Services Authorities to ensure timely legal aid.
6. MCQs Based on Judgment
Q1. In CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato (2025), why did the Supreme Court hold that Section 436-A CrPC was not applicable?
A) Because the accused were convicted.
B) Because the offences involved possible death penalty, which is excluded under the section.
C) Because the trial was already complete.
D) Because the accused were out on bail.
Q2. What was the primary reason the Supreme Court refused to cancel the bail granted to the accused?
A) The accused were found innocent.
B) The trial was already over.
C) The accused had not misused their liberty or delayed the trial after release.
D) The CBI withdrew the case.