Mumbra Train Derailment: Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection To Two Central Railway Engineers

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief from arrest to Central Railway engineers Vishal Dolas and Samar Yadav, who are accused in the Mumbra train accident that claimed the lives of five passengers on June 9.

HC Gives Interim Protection Till December 9

Justice Nitin Borkar directed the police not to take any coercive action against the duo until December 9 while hearing their pre-arrest bail plea.

The two engineers approached the high court through advocates Nitin Gaware Patil and Shantanu Kolhe after the Thane sessions court rejected their anticipatory bail plea last week.

Investigation Still Underway

Public prosecutor Rutuja Ambekar informed the court that the investigation in the case was still in progress.

Sessions Court Had Rejected ‘Mere Accident’ Claim

The Thane sessions court refused to accept the defence that the incident was a “mere accident.” It observed that the tragedy in which five commuters died and nine were injured stemmed from a “knowing default or omission” by the accused railway engineers and other officials.

Two Conflicting Inquiry Reports

Two contrasting reports were placed before the court on the cause of the derailment.

Independent VJTI Report Points to Track Negligence

An inquiry by the Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), commissioned by the GRP, held Dolas and Yadav responsible for failing to fix serious track defects despite repeated alerts.
The report highlighted: a 17 mm gap between rail joints, a 7 mm vertical gap, a 4 mm lateral shift

These defects allegedly caused a violent jolt that led to the derailment.
The report also noted that no welding was carried out after a track change on June 5 and that washouts under the track bed had further weakened the line.

Railway’s Internal Expert Committee Disputes Findings

The railway’s expert committee rejected the VJTI conclusions, claiming instead that commuters standing on the footboard with protruding backpacks brushed against a train on the adjoining track.
The committee also said the train was moving within the permissible speed of 72 kmph on a 2.25-degree curve.

Sessions Court Dismisses ‘Backpack’ Theory

The sessions court held that the accident was entirely preventable and occurred because authorities ignored broken tracks and poor maintenance despite knowing the corridor was heavily crowded during peak hours.
It dismissed the railway’s backpack theory, noting the absence of supporting photographs or videos and observing that commuters typically carry bags in front, not protruding outward.

news