Explain delay in trial: Supreme Court to Maharashtra in Surendra Gadling bail case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed the State of Maharashtra to explain why the trial in the 2016 Surajgarh arson case has not begun despite human rights lawyer Surendra Gadling spending over six years in custody [Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Gadling’s plea for bail. The Court said that its main concern was the delay in the trial and the length of incarceration.

“Why is the trial not going on? This is the main concern. If you keep a person in custody without trial, for how many years?” Justice Maheshwari asked.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, said that the case was unusual because the petitioner was a practising lawyer with no antecedents and yet was in jail for years without trial.

“He has been a successful lawyer. It is unusual that a lawyer should be arraigned like this. It is sad. In this case, he has already served more than six and a half years,” Grover submitted.

He argued that much of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution had been lifted from the Bhima Koregaon case, in which Gadling was first arrested in June 2018. According to him, the alleged documents linking Gadling to the banned CPI (Maoist) were collected in violation of safeguards for electronic evidence.

“The hash value of the electronic evidence has to be ascertained. They haven’t done that during seizure. That is the fatal mistake. They can change anything in the evidence,” Grover said.

The Bench, however, noted that the admissibility of such arguments could not be tested at the bail stage.

Grover also emphasised the delay in proceedings. He said that the prosecution itself had requested that the trial in the Surajgarh case not begin until the Bhima Koregaon case was over. He highlighted that even the trial judge had noted the prosecution’s “casual” approach.

When the Bench asked about the evidence collected in the Surajgarh case itself, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the State, pointed to letters and documents that allegedly showed Gadling’s nexus with the Maoist network.

According to Raju, the material showed that Gadling was a member of the banned organisation, acting as a conspirator and providing logistical support.

“These documents show his role in the CPI (Maoist) which is linked to the Surajgarh case. The local naxalites are guided by persons like him who are at the helm of affairs,” Raju submitted.

The judges asked whether this material indicated that Gadling was a mastermind. Raju replied that it did, and added that documents from one case could be used in another as per law.

When the Court brought up the issue of delay, Raju attributed the same to a pending discharge application. He submitted that Gadling had refused to argue it and had not been appearing in person, citing security threats.

The Court then directed the prosecution to place on record a chart clarifying the status of discharge applications, the reasons for delay and the proposed scheme of trial. In its order, the Bench said that the State must explain the reasons for the prolonged delay and specify how and when it intended to complete the trial.

The matter will now be heard after three weeks, on October 29.

This was the 19th adjournment of Gadling’s bail plea, which has been pending since August 2023. Six of the seven accused in the Surajgarh case are already out on bail. Gadling, who was arrested in this case while in prison for Bhima Koregaon, remains the only one in custody.

[Read Live Coverage]