Third Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

The Supreme Court today (July 21) ordered that the bail plea of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case should be heard by a bench not comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. At the outset, an advocate on behalf of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for the National Investigation Agency) sought a passover, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner. However, Justice Mishra said the matter will go before another coordinate bench since Justice Chandrashekhar has some difficulty. "It will go to some other combination; my brother has some difficulty. Post before the bench in which one of us is not there," Justice Mishra said.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 is the third recusal in the case so far. Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice MM Sundresh have recused so far. In September last year, 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?Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, had said that the main evidence is electronic and overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon case, but copies have not been supplied. He also pointed out that the trial has been proceeding without a permanent Public Prosecutor. On the other side, ASG SV Raju said an application to transfer Bhima Koregaon records is pending before the trial court, and Gadling has not replied yet. Grover said the reply would be filed soon.The Court had earlier directed Maharashtra authorities to ensure proper video conferencing facilities after complaints of malfunction during Gadling's production. Grover told the Court that despite this, the system failed on five hearing dates, and the State's application has been forwarded to the NIA court in Mumbai but remains unheard. He stressed that Gadling has been in custody for seven years without trial.Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 3742/2023Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Gadling along with Advocate on Record Pratik Bombarde for the petitioner

Third Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Third Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Hearing Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea In 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers