Thane, Nov. 15 -- The Thane court which refused anticipatory bail to two Central Railway (CR) engineers in connection with the Mumbra train mishap in June said the incident was not merely an accident but an outcome of a "knowing default or omission" by the accused engineers and other railway authorities. A detailed investigation was required to unearth the truth behind the incident which led to the death of five passengers who fell off two trains that were crossing each other between Mumbra and Diva stations on June 9, additional sessions judge GT Pawar observed in Thursday's order which was uploaded on the court's website on Friday. The judge had denied bail to the two CR engineers, saying their custodial interrogation was necessary. The accused engineers - assistant divisional engineer Vishal Dolas and senior section engineer Samar Yadav - were booked by the Thane Government Railway Police (GRP) on November 1 under sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 125(a)(b) (acts endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Thursday's court order, which HT has accessed, said the CR's five-member expert committee had tried to give a clean chit to the two engineers and the railways. Both the engineers were well-aware that Mumbai and its suburban areas were highly dense, with local trains being the main and most important mode of transport. The defence's main contention - that the mishap was caused by overcrowding and protruding backpacks of passengers brushing against each other, triggering a fall - was not supported by any photographs, panchanama, or spot inspection, the court said. Generally, when people travel on local trains, they hang their backpacks in front and not on their back. Hence the conclusion drawn by CR's expert committee seemed unreasonable, the court said. As per the Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) report, it was evident that the rail on track four at section 28 was replaced just 3-4 days before the incident, the court said. The rail was not welded, leaving a 17-mm gap that caused jerks, and the distance between tracks 3 and 4 was uneven, varying from 4,230 mm to 4,920 mm, which might have contributed to the accident, the court held. The difference in superelevation between the two tracks could have caused the two trains to tilt toward each other and resulting in the accident, it noted. The deficiencies pointed out by VJTI were rectified by the railways after the incident. Had these deficiencies been addressed earlier, the accident might not have occurred, the court said. The accused engineers had obtained a caution order for maintenance of the track but failed to carry out the necessary repair work, which prima facie showed omission on their part, the court held....