Recently, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for prompt consideration of the bail plea filed by lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh arson case. Observing that the matter required urgent attention, the Court expressed its disapproval of the Maharashtra government’s request for an adjournment, citing the incomplete submission of documents. The Court remarked that this case was not “a usual matter” and should be heard without unnecessary delays.
In December 2016, a violent incident occurred in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, where 39 vehicles were used for transporting iron ore from the Surajgarh mines. The Gadchiroli Police registered a First Information Report (FIR), citing offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), and Sections 143, 147, and 148 (relating to unlawful assembly and rioting). Additional charges were brought under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act. Surendra Gadling, a lawyer and activist, was implicated in the case and charged under the UAPA. He is also accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case, which is under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Currently, Gadling is in judicial custody at Taloja Central Prison.
Earlier this year, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court denied Gadling’s bail, holding that the allegations of his involvement with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) appeared to be prima facie credible.
While addressing the State’s adjournment request, the Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar emphasised the exceptional nature of the case, highlighting its sensitivity and significance. The Bench remarked that matters involving such serious allegations and implications for individual liberty must be prioritised and handled with due urgency. The Court further noted that justice could not be delayed under the pretext of incomplete filings or procedural hurdles. The Bench observed, “This is not a usual matter. We have to hear this.” It underlined the necessity of balancing the rights of the accused with the public interest and the gravity of the charges, cautioning that prolonged delays could undermine judicial efficacy. While granting two weeks for the submission of additional documents, the Court reiterated its commitment to ensuring timely adjudication, given the stakes involved. Previously, the High Court had remarked that the seriousness of the charges against Gadling outweighed the arguments made in support of his bail.
Picture Source :
