Gadling Bail Plea Comes Up After Recusal
Justice Atul Chandurkar of the Supreme Court on Thursday recused from hearing advocate Surendra Pundalik Gadling’s bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul Chandurkar took up the matter. At the outset, Justice Chandurkar declined to hear the case. Earlier, Justice M.M. Sundresh had also recused. After that, a Bench led by Justice Maheshwari continued to hear the matter.
Gadling has filed Criminal Appeal No. 3742 of 2023. He challenged the Bombay High Court order denying him bail in the arson case. He has also remained in custody since June 2018 in the Bhima Koregaon case. The National Investigation Agency is prosecuting that case under the UAPA over alleged Maoist links.
The prosecution has booked Gadling under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code. It alleges that he joined a Maoist conspiracy to burn more than 80 vehicles. Those vehicles were carrying iron ore from the Surjagarh mines in Etapalli tehsil, Gadchiroli district, Maharashtra. According to the prosecution, Gadling directed other accused persons to torch the vehicles and cause property loss.
The present Bench is hearing the appeal after Justice Sundresh stepped aside. In September, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the long pendency of the trial. It asked whether authorities can keep an undertrial in custody for years without concluding the trial.
The Court sought specific information from the State. It asked for the reason for the delay in trial. It also asked why the authorities had not disposed of the discharge applications. In addition, it sought details about the prosecution’s plan for the trial. The Bench also asked about the split trial involving co-accused persons who have not yet been arrested. It further asked how long the prosecution would take to complete the trial.
On an earlier date, the Court said it would check with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. It wanted to know whether a judge had been posted to the concerned NIA court.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared for Gadling. He submitted that the main evidence is electronic. He said this material overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon case. He also said the authorities had not supplied copies of that material. Grover further pointed out that the trial has proceeded without a permanent Public Prosecutor.
For the State, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju made submissions. He said an application seeking transfer of Bhima Koregaon records is pending before the trial court. He also said Gadling has not yet filed a reply. Grover told the Court that he would file the reply soon.
Earlier, the Court had directed Maharashtra authorities to ensure proper video conferencing facilities. It passed that direction after complaints about technical failures during Gadling’s production. Grover, however, told the Court that the system failed on five hearing dates despite that direction. He also said the State had forwarded its application to the NIA court in Mumbai. According to him, that court has still not heard it.
Grover further submitted that Gadling has spent seven years in custody without trial. During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari suggested appointing an officer to bring the electronic record for inspection. He said Gadling could then examine the material and make submissions at the stage of framing charges. Grover responded that the electronic material is extensive. He said Gadling could not inspect it within a week. Even so, the Court asked him to proceed with the inspection.
Grover also submitted that the NIA court currently has neither a presiding judge nor a permanent Public Prosecutor. The Bench said it would request the Chief Justice to appoint a judge within a week.
Grover then sought more time to argue the matter after a month if no progress takes place. The Court accepted the request and adjourned the case.
Case Details: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Crl.A. No. 3742/2023
