Mumbra train accident: Two CR engineers move HC for anticipatory bail

The matter was posted for hearing on Thursday before the single judge bench of justice NR Borkar. After hearing both the Government Railway Police (GRP) and the accused engineers, the court adjourned the matter for consideration on December 9

MUMBAI: The two Central Railway (CR) engineers who were booked for culpable homicide following the death of five train commuters in Mumbra on June 9 have approached the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Mumbra train accident: Two CR engineers move HC for anticipatory bail

The matter was posted for hearing on Thursday before the single judge bench of justice NR Borkar. After hearing both the Government Railway Police (GRP) and the accused engineers, the court adjourned the matter for consideration on December 9.

Five commuters died in Mumbra on June 9 when they fell off two local trains crossing each other on adjacent tracks. An internal inquiry by CR found that protruding backpacks of commuters in the two trains had brushed against each other, triggering a fall.

Subsequently, on November 3, the Thane GRP registered a first information report against assistant divisional engineer Vishal Dolas and senior section engineer Samar Yadav under section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, claiming the incident was a result of core engineering and maintenance lapses.

The two accused engineers were refused anticipatory bail by the Thane sessions court on November 13. They moved the high court on November 18, claiming the allegations against them were baseless and based solely on a report submitted by the Veermata Jijabai Technical Institute (VJTI), which does not have any expertise in railway track engineering and maintenance.

The bail plea, filed through advocate Nitin Gaware Patil, claimed that the incident wasn’t a case of culpable homicide but an unfortunate event on account of passengers travelling on the footboard of crowded trains. The VJTI conducted a spot inspection 43 days after the incident, track measurements were taken by the GRP although they did not have any competence in the matter and the observations and opinion of the VJTI engineer was based exclusively on assumptions and had no sanctity, the plea said.

The accused engineers said the Thane sessions court had, while rejecting their anticipatory bail plea, relied upon the VJTI report without considering the internal report by CR, which had the necessary expertise in train operations, track maintenance and passenger security.

CR’s internal report, submitted on September 20, said that the track geometry, track maintenance, rolling stock (coach) measurements and train speeds were all within limits when the incident took place. The report identified footboard travelling as the main reason for the accident, along with the protruding backpacks on passengers’ shoulders. It ruled out other possibilities of sabotage, miscreant activity and quarrelling between passengers,

“It is observed that the second and third coach of N 10 were heavily overcrowded compared to other coaches. The protruding backpacks came in contact with commuters travelling on the footboard of the train coming from the opposite direction. The commuters fell down, which triggered a domino effect leading to entangling and falling of other passengers,” CR’s internal report said.

The two accused engineers cited the CR report and said they could neither be arrayed as accused, nor could the lapses that caused the accident be attributed to them. Registration of FIR against them would seriously infringe their fundamental rights and constitutional safeguards, they said in the bail plea.