The wife of one of the passengers killed by former Railway Protection Force constable Chetansinh Chaudhary on a train in 2023 has opposed his bail plea, saying that he would not have targeted the victims after identifying them as Muslim if he had been of “unsound mind”, The Indian Express reported on Monday.
Chaudhary had killed Assistant Sub Inspector Tikaram Meena and three Muslim passengers – Abdul Kaderbhai Bhanpurwala, Sadar Mohammed Hussain and Asghar Abbas Sheikh – on the Jaipur-Mumbai Central Superfast Express in July 2023.
Witnesses to the incident said that Chaudhary walked through four coaches of the train to select his victims and asked them for their names before killing them.
He was booked under the Indian Penal Code for murder and under the Arms Act. The police later added charges of kidnapping and promoting enmity on grounds of religion. He was also dismissed from the Railway Protection Force.
The Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai began the trial in November 2024.
At the time, Chaudhary had filed an application for bail claiming that he was “mentally unstable”. In January 2025, the court said that he be referred to a mental health facility in Thane for a medical examination.
A previous petition filed by the former Railway Protection Force constable citing his mental state had been rejected in December 2023.
Chaudhary said that he had been admitted to a mental health facility for four months this year, which should be considered as a change in circumstance to consider his fresh application for bail.
On Monday, the prosecution opposed Chaudhary’s petition stating that crucial witnesses were being examined and that he faced serious allegations, including a charge punishable with death penalty, The Indian Express reported.
“The accused mentioned some grounds in his bail application about his ill health [that] is not considerable at this point,” the newspaper quoted the prosecution’s reply as saying. “The grounds mentioned in the bail applications of the accused does not inspire confidence.”
In addition, Sheikh’s wife Umesa Khatoon, an intervener in the case, noted that the matter fell under the “rarest of rare” category as Chaudhary was supposed to have ensured the security of the passengers but had allegedly caused their deaths instead.
Khatoon urged the court to allow her to intervene in the proceedings and oppose Chaudhary’s bail, The Times of India reported.
Her petition also cited the evidence section of the chargesheet filed in the case, which said that Chaudhary allegedly searched for persons from the Muslim community, The Indian Express reported.
Khatoon alleged that the killings of the Muslim passengers were targeted.
“The conduct and modus operandi of the accused prima facie shows that he has committed cold-blooded murders of four innocent persons,” The Indian Express quoted her petition as saying. “He was totally in sound mind, and he was aware of the ramifications and consequences of his act.”
Noting there were several eyewitnesses who had deposed in the case, Khatoon said that Chaudhary “was on duty and it is a protocol of RPF that a sane, sound mind person is employed in RPF after conducting medical [examination] of the aspirants”.
Her petition also described the former Railway Protection Force constable as a “terrorist-minded individual”, adding that his actions were a “threat to national security” and the “venomous feeling of hatred in his mind” was the force that drove him to commit the crime.
The court will hear the bail plea later this month.
So far, 16 witnesses have deposed in the case, The Indian Express reported. This included a head constable of the Railway Protection Force who deposed on Monday.
On July 31, 2023, after one of the Muslim victim’s body fell to the floor, Chaudhary had asked the rest of the passengers in the coach to record a video as he made a speech in which he praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath.
“If you want to vote, if you want to live in India, then I say Modi and Yogi, these are the two and your Thackeray,” he had declared. It was not clear which member of the Thackeray family he was referring to.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!