The BRICS TimesThe scheduling follows a recent recusal by a different bench of the apex court, which occurred after Gadling’s legal team highlighted the prolonged delay in the case, which has been pending since August of the previous year.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, set September 17 as the date to hear the bail petition of Surendra Gadling, a lawyer and an accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. This development occurred one week after a separate bench of the court withdrew from presiding over the matter. The recusal took place amidst objections from Gadling’s attorneys regarding the extensive delay in proceedings, which have been pending since August 2023.
Gadling had moved to the Supreme Court seeking bail in a 2016 arson case after the Bombay High Court rejected his application for release in January 2023. A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and K Vinod Chandran stated, “We will take up this matter after two weeks on September 17.” The case was presented before this bench for the first time following the recusal of a bench led by Justice MM Sundresh on August 26, which did not provide specific reasons for stepping down.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, representing Gadling, highlighted that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has not yet submitted its response, despite a notice being issued to the agency as far back as October 10, 2023. Grover emphasized that the matter concerns the personal liberty of an individual, noting that Gadling has been incarcerated for nearly six and a half years. “In March this year, they took time to file a response and the reply is still not filed. No charges have been framed and they are relying on the pending proceedings in the Bhima Koregaon violence case,” Grover stated.
Representing the NIA, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju requested additional time to file the agency’s reply. The bench acknowledged this request and granted a two-week extension.
Gadling, a human rights lawyer, is also currently imprisoned in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case. However, the present arson case involves allegations that he participated in a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act by setting fire to 80 vehicles engaged in transporting iron ore from the Surajgarh mines in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district in December 2016.
On July 18, the bench led by Justice Sundresh had initially scheduled the matter to be taken up in November 2025. Challenging this order, Gadling’s counsel mentioned the case before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, appealing for an urgent hearing in light of Gadling’s imprisonment since June 2018. Following this appeal, the CJI moved the hearing date from November to August 26.
Justice Sundresh had been hearing Gadling’s bail plea since July 9, 2024. Since then, the state has repeatedly sought adjournments on multiple occasions, resulting in no substantial progress in the hearings. After the Supreme Court issued notice in October 2023, the case has been listed before the court 16 times.
The charges against Gadling are framed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including those related to attempt to murder (section 307), wrongful restraint (sections 341, 342), mischief by fire (section 435), and criminal conspiracy (section 120B), among others.
While denying bail to Gadling, the High Court observed, “On a consideration of the totality of the material on record alleged against the appellant (Gadling), we find that there is reasonable ground for believing the accusations of NIA against the appellant having been part of a conspiracy and abetting the commission of terrorist acts, as also having direct membership of the banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) are prima facie to be true.”
The court further held, “The threat posed to the public and the seriousness of the entire conspiracy alleged against the appellant would far outweigh the other considerations put forth by the appellant, namely that he is a prominent advocate with a long unblemished record at the bar, that he is the sole bread winner of his family or that he has not been involved in any earlier crime, (that) would require to be rejected.”
Previously, the trial court had also rejected Gadling’s bail application in March 2022, ruling that under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, there were reasonable grounds to deny bail since the accusations against him were prima facie found to be true.
Akshay Didwaniya
Mayur Mohta
Pratik Agrawal
Aditya Didwaniya