Ensure Proper VC Facilities In Trial Of 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case : Supreme Court To Maharashtra

The Supreme Court on Monday told Maharashtra authorities to ensure that virtual conferencing facilities function properly during hearings in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case, after Surendra Gadling's counsel complained that the VC system routinely fails when the lawyer-activist is produced before the trial court.

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Gadling's bail plea. Gadling, who has spent 6 years and 10 months in custody, told the Court that he has been unfairly “branded” only because he appeared as counsel in certain Naxalite cases. The Court re-listed the matter for January, granting time to file a reply to an application that is pending before the trial court and asking the trial court to decide it expeditiously.

At the outset, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju informed the bench that the State's affidavit had been filed. Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, disputed the contents of the affidavit, describing several assertions as “misleading” and “false”. He argued that, according to the trial court's own records, the State was responsible for the delay in commencing trial.

Grover submitted that the prosecution itself had moved an application to defer the trial until the decision in the Bhima Koregaon case, but did not pursue it for nearly three years. “There are 17 accused. The trial has not been split till today. They say only 6 are chargesheeted. They have not bothered, they do not care,” he said. He argued that the principal evidence is electronic and overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon case, yet the State had not furnished him copies of the electronic material. He added that the case has been proceeding without a permanent Public Prosecutor.

The senior counsel reiterated that the State withdrew its application to defer the trial only after Gadling moved the Supreme Court. He also questioned the State's claim of a “security risk” if Gadling were released on bail, pointing out that the activist had earlier been granted interim bail on three occasions and that the evidence against him consisted largely of electronic records, which he alleged were “planted”.

“Where is the security risk? I have been a lawyer for 30 years. Because I was doing, among other matters, Naxalite cases, I am branded,” he told the bench, adding that nothing was recovered from Gadling and that the solitary statement referred to by the prosecution did not implicate him.

Grover further noted that all co-accused in the case have been granted bail, including poet Varavara Rao, who was released last week and faces charges in the Bhima Koregaon matter as well.

Justice Maheshwari asked ASG Raju to respond to the submissions, including on the prolonged incarceration without initiation of trial. The ASG said an application seeking transfer of records of the Bhima Koregaon case was still pending before the trial court and that Gadling had not yet replied to it. Grover assured the Court that the reply would be filed promptly.

The bench then re-listed the matter for January, directing the trial court to decide the pending application. On the issue of repeated VC failures raised by Grover, the Supreme Court asked the State to take immediate steps to ensure that virtual production of the accused proceeds smoothly.

To recap, Gadling filed the present appeal challenging the Bombay High Court order denying him bail in the arson case. He 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 has been 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 he gave directions to other accused to set the vehicles on fire and cause loss of property in the incident.

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

In September, the Court had raised concerns over the prolonged pendency of trial in the present case. It asked whether a person can be kept in custody as an undertrial for many years. Further, it sought following information sought from the State: (a) What is the reason for delay in trial, (b) Reason for non-disposal of applications seeking discharge, (c) The scheme of prosecution - in what manner they require to proceed with trial and also the split of trial with other co-accused persons who have not been arrested till now, (d) In how much period will the prosecution complete the trial?

Background

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

The Bombay High Court rejected his 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. He was later arrested in February 2019 in connection with the Gadchiroli arson case.

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

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order