Supreme Court To Hear Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case On September 24

Senior Advocate Anand Grover on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the case against Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli Surajgad arson incident was “completely false” and based only on electronic evidence illegally seized in the Bhima Koregaon case."In the other case, that is the Bhima Koregaon case, according to them they had electronic evidence. The electronic evidence was seized without following any procedure under the law. As your lordship knows electronic evidence can be altered. This is a completely false case; I would say planted evidence. They went to the trial court, asked for search warrant - denied. Once again went, denied again. Without following the procedure they go to his house, seize the electronic evidence without following any procedure known to law under the IT Act, Evidence Act and then they say that there is evidence in those electronic devices that you are a member of the Maoist party, that you are providing finance on their behalf and that you said that it's actually good to attack, there was a proposal to clear the forest and that should be enforced", he said.A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Gadling's appeal challenging the Bombay High Court order denying him bail in the case. The Court adjourned the matter to next Wednesday (September 24) after briefly hearing Grover and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. 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.The matter was listed before this bench after Justice MM Sundresh recused from hearing the case.During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Anand Grover for Gadling submitted that was not named in the FIR regarding the incident. He submitted that electronic evidence implicating Gadling in the arson case was allegedly found by the NIA after arresting him in the Bhima Koregaon case. Grover contended that the NIA did not follow proper procedure to get that evidence, and conducted the search despite the trial court refusing to grant a search warrant. Further, there was no other material against Gadling except that illegally seized in the Bhima Koregaon case, he said.ASG Raju told the Court that Gadling's house was searched on April 17, 2018. He opposed Grover's argument, contending that there is no requirement in law to obtain search warrant in the course of investigation. He further submitted that it is an inherent power of the investigating officer to search any place for the purpose of finding evidence.Raju further contended that even if a search is illegal, the material collected can be used. "Even assuming that the search was illegal, your lordships have in a series of judgments taken a view that material recovered can be used and is admissible as evidence. Though I will demonstrate this is not an illegal search, even if search is illegal, material collected is not washed of. It can be relied upon and conviction can be based on it", he submitted.At this point, considering the paucity of time, Justice Maheshwari asked if the arguments will be finished if the bench sits for another 10 to 15 minutes. However, ASG Raju said that the matter will take some time. Thus, the Court decided to adjourn it and continue next Wednesday.BackgroundGadling 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 Nagpur bench of the 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 Bombay 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. 3742/2023Case...

Supreme Court To Hear Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case On September 24

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags