Premium

Mumbra accident: Anticipatory bail plea of two engineers rejected

A Thane sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two Central Railway engineers accused of negligence in the June 9 Mumbra train accident that claimed five lives.

3 min readUpdated: Nov 13, 2025 08:08 PM IST

The GRP cited technical evidence and witness statements to support the need for their custodial interrogation.

A Thane court rejected bail for two Central Railway engineers accused of negligence in the June 9 Mumbra train mishap that killed five commuters. (Representative photo)

The sessions court in Thane on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two Central Railway engineers booked by the Government Railway Police (GRP) over the Mumbra accident on June 9, which had caused the death of five commuters. Additional sessions judge G T Pawar rejected the pleas of assistant divisional engineer Vishal Dolas and senior section engineer Samar Yadav, who were allegedly in charge of maintenance of the tracks. The detailed orders are yet to be made available.

On June 9, five commuters had fallen off two trains near Mumbra railway station on the main line of the central railway. While an inquiry report by the CR said the deaths were caused due to overcrowding on the train as a protruding backpack of commuters on one train brushed past the other train’s passengers standing on the footboard, the GRP said it was relying evidence including a technical report filed by the Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), pointing towards alleged negligence by the engineers due to which the accident occurred.

During the arguments on the pleas, the GRP had said the custodial interrogation of the two engineers was needed to probe further. The GRP had submitted that apart from the VJTI report, it had relied on statements of 32 persons, including staffers of the CR, passengers and those who have come forward through WhatsApp, emails, after a public notice was issued seeking information about the accident. The GRP had alleged that due to rain in the end of May and the preceding days of the incident on June 9, a culvert near the tracks had choked up, and water had filled onto the tracks, displacing the gravel under them, due to which the ground near the platform sank slightly. It was
alleged that the two accused had inspected the tracks but did not do the required maintenance work, despite issuing a track attention and caution order.

The local trains came closer to each other and led to the deaths after the commuters brushed against each other, it was alleged. The GRP also countered the claim of the CR that a commuter’s large bag had caused the accident, claiming that no such bag was found. The lawyer for the engineers said that the bag could have been misplaced during the accident.

The lawyer for the two also said the maintenance work was carried out and no omission on their part had caused the accident. It was also submitted that the technical report and probe by the police was not based on the railway manual, including in the manner in which measurements of the tracks are to be taken, due to which the conclusion reached is not proper. The lawyer had also submitted that the engineers were ready to cooperate with the police and their custody is not required to be taken by arresting them.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Loading Taboola...