THANE, Nov. 12 -- The Thane Sessions Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas of two accused railway engineers in the June 9 Mumbra train accident, which left five dead and over 15 injured. Additional Sessions Judge GT Pawar will pronounce the verdict today. The accused engineers - assistant divisional engineer Vishal Dolas, senior section engineer Samar Yadav - were booked on November 1 by the Thane Government Railway Police (GRP). The accused had allegedly failed to repair a damaged section of the track between Mumbra and Diva despite four caution orders issued to them between March and June 2025. During Tuesday's hearing, both sides presented their arguments before the court. Quoting a study by the Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), Matunga, GRP said crucial maintenance lapses contributed to the accident. The track ballast had been washed away due to an overflowing drain passing under the line, causing the trains to tilt toward each other, stated the report. The collision led to passengers brushing against each other and falling from the trains. SB Shirsat, assistant commissioner of police, GRP, Mumbai, said in the court that although the railways had prescribed a speed limit of 75 km/h for the curved section between Mumbra and Diva, trains were running faster. Only after the accident was it reduced, he said. The GRP added that statements from the motorman of the Kasara-CSMT train indicated the service was running 12 minutes late, leading to overcrowding. Defence lawyer Baldev Rajput, however, argued that crowd management was the responsibility of the GRP, not railways. He claimed that the accident was caused by overcrowding, protruding backpacks, and passengers on the footboard, not by track defects. He also pointed out that the collision occurred several 100 feet away from the problematic section GRP cited. The defence further questioned the validity of the VJTI report, claiming the institute's analysis was theoretical and lacked practical railway experience. Rajput said CR's internal investigation by five technical experts had already found no fault with the track, and had the GRP reviewed that report, no FIR would have been registered. However, the GRP stated that there were no backpacks found at the site during panchnama. Despite repeated requests, the CR authorities did not share their report in time. The GRP's investigation also included statements from over 30 witnesses, gathered through emails, phone calls, WhatsApp, and invited by public notices published in 17 newspapers. The bench stated that crowd management falls under the jurisdiction of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), not the GRP, and questioned why the railway's report had been withheld. The defence replied that the report was completed on September 20 and handed over to the GRP on November 3, two days after the FIR was registered. Defence lawyers urged the court that there was no need to arrest the two engineers, asserting that they were not responsible for the mishap and, being government employees and permanent residents, they would not escape. and will be available for the GRP's investigations....