Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 24) raised concerns over the prolonged pendency of trial proceedings against lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadhchiroli arson case..

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi asked whether a person can be kept in custody as an undertrial for many years.

“But why is the trial not going on? Because... you keep a person in custody without trial for how many years?” Justice Maheshwari asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State of Maharashtra.

ASG Raju submitted that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution but to the accused himself. The ASG argued that Gadling had filed a discharge application but was refusing to argue it unless he was permitted to be physically present in court. ASG said that he cannot be physically produced due to security concerns.

The bench asked why the discharge application can't be dismissed if there is non-cooperation by the applicant, and why should the trial be held up on this ground.

"So let it be decided. If they are not arguing, let it be decided. Mention that they are refusing to argue," Justice Maheshwari said.

The bench adjourned the hearing by asking the State to file a statement explaining the reasons for the delay. On Senior Advocate Anand Grover, for Gadling, submitting that the State was not splitting up the trial with respect to the absconding accused, the bench also sought clarity on that aspect.

The following are the information sought from the State :

1. What is the reason for the delay in trial. It may be explained in brief by the prosecution agency.

2. Applications for discharge are pending. The reason of non-disposal be also explained in an affidavit along with a summary of the order sheets.

3. The scheme of prosecution - in what manner with trial they require to proceed and also specifying the split of trial with other co-accused persons who have not been arrested till now.

4. It will also be indicated that the prosecution would complete the trial within how much period.

The matter will be next heard on October 28/29.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Gadling challenging the Bombay High Court order denying him bail in the 2016 Gadchiroli Surajgad arson case. Gadling is also in custody in the Bhima Koregaon case being prosecuted by the NIA, under the UAPA, over alleged Maoist links, since June 2018.

Gadling is booked under various sections of the UAPA and IPC for allegedly being part of a conspiracy by Maoists to set fire to over 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagarh mines in Etapalli tehsil, Distt. Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

The prosecution has alleged that Gadling gave directions to other accused to set the vehicles on fire and cause loss of property in the incident. Gadling is also accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad violence case.

This bench is hearing the matter after Justice MM Sundresh recused.

Earlier, Senior Advocate Anand Grover for Gadling, has argued that the case against him is false and based solely on electronic evidence illegally seized in the Bhima Koregaon case. He submitted that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) conducted searches of Gadling's house despite the trial court twice refusing to grant a search warrant, and seized electronic devices without following procedure under the Information Technology Act and the Evidence Act.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that there is no legal requirement to obtain a search warrant during investigation. He said it is an inherent power of the investigating officer to search any place for evidence. He further contended that even if a search is illegal, material collected during such a search can still be used as evidence and relied upon for conviction.

Background

Gadling is booked under Sections 307, 341, 342, 435, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 5 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Bombay High Court rejected Gadling's bail plea after determining that he was part of a conspiracy to abet terrorist acts, based on letters and a hard drive seized during the investigation. The Court determined that prima facie, Gadling wasn't merely the advocate of some members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) but was himself a formal member of the organization.

In 2023, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi issued notice on Gadling's plea.

Gadling has been lodged in Taloja prison since June 2018 following his arrest in the Bhima Koregaon case and was later arrested in February 2019 in connection with the Gadchiroli arson case.

The High Court in 2024 also rejected default bail applications filed by Gadling and co-accused Mahesh Raut in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad case of 2018. Earlier, in December 2021, the High Court had granted default bail to co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj but rejected it for Gadling and eight others.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Case Title – Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear bail plea of lawyer Surendra Gadling, accused under UAPA in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case.

Bench: Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. pic.twitter.com/UvnOXSyahl