Thane Court Denies Bail To Railway Engineers In Mumbra Train Accident; Cites 'Knowing Default'
Thane court rejects anticipatory bail for two railway engineers in Mumbra train incident, noting accident likely caused by negligence despite caution orders and delayed repairs.
Thane, Nov 14 (PTI) Rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of two Central Railway engineers named in an FIR related to the June 9 Mumbra train incident, a court here has held that the accident prima facie resulted from a "knowing default or omission." The applicants were responsible for the maintenance of the track, but apparently failed to perform their duty despite a "caution order", and the repairs were carried out after the accident, the judge said.
Additional sessions judge G T Pawar on Thursday denied pre-arrest bail to a section engineer and a senior section engineer who are facing a case for alleged `culpable homicide not amounting to murder' and `acts endangering life or personal safety'.
Two trains, one headed to Kasara and the other to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, were passing each other at a sharp curve when some commuters on the footboard of the coaches fell on the tracks after their backpacks brushed, as per railway police. Five persons died in the incident.
Denying relief to the accused, the judge relied on two expert reports -- one from the Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS) and another from the Committee of Experts from V.J.T. Institute, Mumbai.
The V.J.T.I. report noted that the rail on Track 4 at Section 28 was replaced 3-4 days prior to the incident, but "no welding was made and there was a 17 mm separation gap which resulted in jerking of train coaches." The court highlighted that all these critical deficiencies were cured by the Railway Authorities after the incident, giving rise to the belief that the accident "might not have happened" if the maintenance had been performed earlier.
The court also rejected the findings of an expert committee appointed by the CR which sought to attribute the cause of the accident to passenger behaviour including overcrowding, travelling on footboard and "protruding outside with backpacks of 30 cm thickness." The applicants' advocate cited this to claim that the incident was "a mere accident".
But judge Pawar noted that the finding was not supported by any photographs, `panchanama' or spot inspection report.
"From above discussion and both the reports on record, prima facie it seems that the alleged incident was not mere an accident, but it was an outcome of knowing default or omission of applicants and other railway authorities," the court said, adding that a detailed investigation was required to unearth the truth.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
Top Headlines
