The Balasore triple train tragedy of October 2, 2023, is a result of composite negligence on the part of railway officials responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and proper functioning of the signalling system, the Orissa High Court observed while granting bail to the three accused.

Noting that two out of the three accused were summoned from other divisions to work on the signalling system at the site near Bahanaga Bazar Railway Station in Balasore where the accident occurred, the court expressed concern over the handling of serious safety issues by the railways.

“Moreover the manner in which persons were drawn from other divisions to work on the signal system of BNBR (Bahanaga Bazar) Station, without even providing them with the diagrams/maps etc., creates anxiety in the mind of the court with regard to the manner in which these serious issues are being handled by the railway authorities,” the single judge bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mahapatra said in a 48-page bail order dated October 29.

“Consequently, on a wholesome consideration of the entire incident, this Court is of the view that the entire tragedy is a result of a composite negligence on the part of the railway personnel/officials/executives, who were responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and proper functioning of the signal,” Justice Mahapatra said.

He has also raised questions on the probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying the role of a junior engineer (signal) who made changes in the signalling system in 2018 without bringing it on record of railways as well as the negligence on the part of the station master of Bahanaga Bazar Railway Station have not been investigated by the agency.

The court has expressed reservation on the CBI’s contention that the accused tried to tamper with the evidence by entering the relay room or North Goomty without any authority after the accident.

“In other words, the petitioners’ entry into the North Goomty and the tampering with the circuit in North Goomty, which is the bone of contention of the prosecution, does not conclusively indicate that the petitioners are solely responsible for the tragedy.

“However, it is without doubt that the same does point a finger of accusation at the Petitioners (accused persons),” the judge said.

According to the High Court, the magnitude of the crime, if at all the same has taken place, is huge, especially considering the impact of the accident as close to 300 people perished in one of the worst railway tragedies in the country and many have sustained grievous injuries.

“Therefore, the question that arises at this juncture is, whether the accident is a result of any crime committed by the accused persons, i.e. whether the accused persons were harbouring any mens rea (intention) to give effect to their criminal design, or is the accident, which caused loss of valuable human life and property, a result of composite negligence on the part of the railway authorities in maintaining the railway tracks and signal system,” Justice Mahapatra said.

The larger issue that is required to be adjudicated in the course of the trial is not only the criminality attached to the incident but also whether the railway authorities have discharged their responsibility as per the railway manuals/guidelines/circulars, it said.

The High Court was of the view that had the authorities been more careful and sincere in discharging their duties, the accident could have been averted, thereby saving the human lives lost.

“Furthermore, considering the fact that the evidence which is required to be adduced and then to be examined by the trial court is highly technical in nature, this Court, at this stage, refrains itself from making any further observation in the matter which would eventually cause prejudice in the mind of the trial court while conducting the trial,” the judge said.

The accident took place near the Bahanaga Bazar station in Balasore on October 2, 2023, in which 293 people were killed — 287 died on the spot or were brought dead to hospital, while six succumbed to injuries during treatment.

The accident involved three trains, namely, the Shalimar-Chennai Coromandel Express, Bengaluru-Howrah Superfast Express and a stationary goods train.

A fault in the signalling system diverted the Coromandel Express into the loop line, instead of the main line, which rammed into a stationary goods train. As some of the passenger train’s coaches fell on the adjacent track, they hit the last portion of Bengaluru-Howrah Superfast Express and derailed it.

The three accused persons from the S&T Department – Mohammad Amir Khan, Arun Kumar Mahanta and Pappu Kumar – were arrested on July 7, 2023, almost a month after the accident, by the CBI for allegedly causing the death of passengers and destroying evidence.

While arguing for bail, the three accused made some common submissions such as the changes were made in the signalling system in 2018 by the then Signal-In-Charge Sourav Haldar and were not recorded properly due to which the signal connection on the basis of the erroneous diagram might have caused the accident.

The accused also said that the entire responsibility of testing and verifying the signalling system rests on the station master through a display board provided in his office. However, in this case, they argued, the station master didn’t do his duty.

On the other hand, the CBI argued that the actions of the accused-petitioners appear to be dubious as these are not in consonance with the respective manuals and guidelines issued by the railways.

The CBI counsel opposed the bail applications and raised questions on the presence of the accused in North Goomty after the accident took place. The agency contended that the accused rushed to the North Goomty to destroy evidence with regard to the fault in the signalling system.

After hearing both the parties, the court granted them bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 each, besides other conditions.

The accused shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case and they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner among others, the court said.