New Delhi [India], September 24 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Maharashtra government over the prolonged pendency of trial proceedings against advocate Surendra Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson case, and inquired whether a person can be kept in custody as an undertrial for an extended period.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Maharashtra government, why the trial was not proceeding and for how many years a person could be kept in custody without trial.
ASG Raju told the bench that the delay in trial was not because of the prosecution but due to Gadling himself and he had filed a discharge application but was refusing to argue it unless he was permitted to be physically present in court.
"He cannot be physically produced due to security concerns", ASG said.
The apex court adjourned the hearing and asked the government to file a statement explaining the reasons for the delay, how the prosecution requires the trial to proceed, and how long the prosecution would take to complete the trial.
The apex court was hearing bail plea of Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson case. It had earlier sought a response from the Maharashtra government on Galding's bail plea, challenging the High Court's order refusing bail to him.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on January 31, 2023, had refused to grant bail to Gadling. The High Court had noted that prima facie the accusations against him were true.
On December 25, 2016, Maoist rebels had allegedly set ablaze 76 vehicles that were being used for transporting iron ore from Surajgarh mines in Maharashtra's Gadchiroli.
Allegations against Gadling are that he provided aid to Maoists, who were working at the ground level. According to the prosecution, he entered into a conspiracy with various co-accused, some of whom are absconding in the case.
The prosecution had claimed that Gadling provided secret information about government activities and maps of certain areas to underground Maoist rebels.
He was also accused of having asked the Maoists to oppose the operation of Surjagarh mines and of having instigated many locals to join the movement.
Gadling was booked under various provisions of the anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the Indian Penal Code.