Supreme Court Issues Notice on Surendra Gadling's Bail Plea in 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on the bail plea of Dalit rights activist and advocate Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli Arson Case. The Nagpur-based lawyer is also among the 16 accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and is currently lodged in Navi Mumbai's Taloja prison. 

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi was hearing Gadling's special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to reject his bail application in the Gadchiroli arson case which involved around 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagarh mines in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district from allegedly being set on fire by Maoists in December 2016. Gadling has been lodged in jail since June 2018 after being arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune.

At the very outset of today's hearing, Justice Bose told Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the incarcerated human rights lawyer, "We are issuing notice."

"It is less egregious," the senior counsel told the bench, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in July by which other Bhima Koregaon-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were granted bail after almost five years in custody. Justice Bose, along with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, not only considered the length of the duo's incarceration but also held that the seriousness of the allegations alone could not be a ground to deny bail and justify their continued detention.

"We'll see," Justice Bose replied to Grover's assertion on the seriousness of the allegation against Gadling in the 2016 arson case, "As per Vernon's case, each piece of evidence..."

"There's a slightly different issue here. Some evidence is in the other case (Bhima Koregaon), which cannot be used against Gadling here," Grover argued.

"We'll see," Justice Bose repeated.

Background

Surendra Gadling, a human rights lawyer and a Dalit rights activist, has approached the Supreme Court against a decision of the Bombay High Court declining to grant him bail in connection with the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The allegation dates back to an incident in December 2016 in Etapalli tehsil of Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district, in which Maoists allegedly set over 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagarh mines ablaze. The Nagpur bench rejected Gadling's bail application after determining that he was part of a conspiracy to abet terrorist acts and was a formal member of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).

The Nagpur-based lawyer, along with 15 others, has also been accused by the National Investigation Agency of being responsible for the caste violence at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, although one of them – Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Father Stan Swamy passed away in July 2021. The Pune police and later, the NIA contended that inflammatory speeches at Elgar Parishad – an event to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima – triggered the violent clashes that broke out between Maratha and Dalit groups near the village of Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra. This led to the 16 activists being arrested for allegedly conspiring and planning the violence and charged with various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act based on letters and emails primarily retrieved from their electronic devices.

Gadling was arrested in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence in June 2018. Subsequently, in February 2019, the Pune police arrested him for his alleged involvement in the 2016 arson case at Surjagad.

Earlier this year, Gadling appealed to the Bombay High Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act of 2008, challenging the decision of the Gadchiroli sessions court on March 28, 2022, which denied him bail. The bench of Justices Vijay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes, rejected his bail plea, referencing letters and a hard drive discovered at Gadling's residence. On the basis of such evidence, the high court concluded that he was not only acting as legal counsel for certain members of the proscribed far-left outfit but was also involved in fundraising, money transfers, and providing financial assistance to its members in the Maoist-affected Gadchiroli district.

Case Details

Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra | Diary No. 35852 of 2023