The Supreme Court came down strongly on the Maharashtra government Wednesday over the indefinite detention of an individual without a trial. "For how long can you keep someone in jail without a trial..." the top court asked the state in the Surendra Gadling bail plea hearing.
The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi also expressed concern over the prolonged incarceration of pre-trial individuals. "What is the reason for delay of the trial?" the court asked the state, after being told the matter in question was the 2016 Surajgarh arson case.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Surendra Pundalik Gadling, a human rights lawyer, told the court his client had been behind bars for over six years, and counting, in the Surajgarh case. The process, the court was told, had been stalled at the framing-of-charges stage.'
The chargesheet in this case was filed June 2019.
He also spent seven years as a pre-trial in the Koregaon-Bhima case, Mr Grover said. "The key facts are... the petitioner is an advocate. He has been a very successful lawyer (and) it is unusual that a lawyer should be arraigned like this. It is sad," he said, referring to the two cases.
The Surajgarh case relates to allegations a group of rebels set mining equipment on fire, amid a stand-off between tribal communities in the area and mining projects being pushed through.
The latter is being probed by the National Investigation Agency and involves allegations of provocative speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed led to violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial.
Last week Mr Gadling was given interim bail to attend the funeral of a family member.
"There are these two cases. One is the Bhima-Koregaon and this is the Surajgarh case. The incident happened in December 2016. Police complaint under Section 16,18, 20, and 24 of the (stringent anti-terror law) UAPA were filed. Originally he was arrested in the Bhima-Koregaon case... in June 2018. Bail was denied by the High Court... matter is repeatedly adjourned."
In response, Justice Maheshwari asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju what materials - in terms of evidence against the accused - have been collected in this case so far.
Mr Raju referred to certain letters and documents and read out a letter that allegedly incriminates Mr Gadling. However, Mr Grover pointed out the material referred to is connected to the Bhima-Koregaon case. "The court asked you to show evidence in this case. I'm surprised."
"These show his role in the CPIM, or Communist Party of India (Marxist), which is linked to the Surajgarh case," he replied, "Documents in one case can be used in another. That is the law."
Mr Raju claimed Mr Gadling and other accused 'guide Naxal fighters (whose) aim is to kill soldiers'. The accused, he declared, are the 'backbone... they provide logistical support'."
The court, however, underlined that its concern, at this time, is the prolonged incarceration of Mr Gadling and the delay in his trial. The court also demanded certain clarification.
In effect, three questions were posed to the prosecution.
What is the reason for the delayed trial?
Applications for discharge have been kept pending. Why? Reasons for non-disclosure may also be explained, and a summary of order sheets provided.
The prosecution's game-plan, i.e., what manner of a trial required and how long will it take?
All this material is to be produced at the next hearing, which will be three weeks later.
