'No Judge Or Prosecutor In NIA Court, 7 Yrs Custody Without Trial': Surendra Gadling To Supreme Court In Bail Plea

The Supreme Court today adjourned lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling's bail plea in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case by a month, while granting time for document inspection.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter and said that it would ascertain from the Bombay High Court Chief Justice whether any judge is posted in the concerned NIA court.

For context, on the last date, Senior Advocate Anand Grover (for Gadling) had argued that the principal evidence in the case is electronic and overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon case, yet the State has not furnished Gadling copies of the electronic material. He added that the case has been proceeding without a permanent Public Prosecutor.

On behalf of the respondent, ASG SV Raju told the Court that an application seeking transfer of records of the Bhima Koregaon case was pending before the trial court and that Gadling had not replied to it. Grover assured the Court that the reply would be filed promptly.

Keeping in view Gadling's complaint regarding malfunctioning of VC facilities whenever he was produced before the trial court, the top Court ordered Maharashtra authorities to ensure the facility was properly available.

Today, Grover informed the Court that despite Court's order on the last date, VC facilities did not work on 5 hearing dates and the State's application has been forwarded to the NIA Court in Mumbai, which has not heard the matter. He emphasized that Gadling has been in jail since 7 years without a trial. "No case against me on merits. This is a very serious case. My liberty is deprived. 7 years! What is this country coming to?", he remarked.

Hearing him, Justice Maheshwari suggested that the Court can ask the concerned Registrar General to appoint an officer who will bring the electronic record for inspection. Gadling can examine it in a week and thereafter, make submissions, so charges can be framed, the judge said.

"Despite all that, electronic evidence copies will not be available", Grover persisted, while adding that electronic evidence is huge and cannot be inspected in a week. "Go there, inspect and make submissions", asserted Justice Maheshwari.

At this point, Grover informed that the NIA court is vacant - there is no judge, nor a permanent public prosecutor. "We will ask the Chief Justice to appoint a judge within a week", assured Justice Maheshwari.

At last, the senior counsel prayed for liberty to argue the matter after a month, if nothing substantial happens in the interregnum. "The way this is going...I have serious doubts", he said. "Why not", remarked Justice Maheshwari, accepting the request.

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?

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