Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court that Surendra Gadling is a senior Maoist leader involved in anti-national activities, including the Surajgarh Mine Arson. The NIA opposed his bail, citing evidence from the Bhima Koregaon case linking him to Maoist operations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India was informed today by the Maharashtra government that Surendra Gadling, who is accused in the Surajgarh Mine Arson Case, is considered one of the senior leaders of the Maoist organisation.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, opposing Gadling’s bail application, told the court that the case
“was of Naxalite activities…attacking our jawans..these persons have provided the logistics..in the Maoist infected areas…”.
When a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi asked whether evidence collected in the Bhima Koregaon case could be used against Gadling in the Surajgarh case, ASG Raju replied,
“These are the documents collected in Bhima Koregaon which show his role in the Surajgarh case..150 trucks carrying minerals were stopped..It is not the law that if documents seized in one case cannot be used in different case..”.
Raju further emphasised the severity of the incident, saying,
“This act of burning the trucks was carried out by Maoists..local militia or Naxalites involved..Our jawans were killed..MAOISTS ARE ANTI-NATIONALS, they are happy if our jawans are killed..Gadling is one of the top comrades of this Maoist organisation..that is why he is involved in all this..”.
He also highlighted that Naxalites operate in underdeveloped areas and added that the Gadchiroli region, being poor, had started seeing some development recently, which the Naxalites did not want.
The Surajgarh Mine Arson Case dates back to an incident where 39 vehicles transporting iron ore to Gadchiroli were allegedly set on fire by Maoist groups.
An FIR was lodged by the police, invoking provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Maharashtra Police Act, and the Arms Act.
Surendra Gadling and other accused were arrested in connection with this case, which was later investigated by the National Investigating Agency (NIA).
Earlier, Gadling had approached the Sessions Court seeking bail, but it was rejected. The Nagpur Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in January 2023, also denied bail after considering the evidence on record and observing that there were grounds to believe Gadling had direct membership of the banned Communist Party of India (Marxist).
The Supreme Court is also hearing Gadling’s bail plea in the Bhima Koregaon Elgar Parishad Violence case of 2018. In that case, he is accused of providing aid to Maoist groups and allegedly conspiring with various co-accused, including those still absconding.
He was booked under multiple provisions of the IPC and UAPA, with the prosecution claiming that Gadling provided secret information about government activities and maps of certain areas to underground Maoist rebels.
Gadling and the other accused were arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, and a chargesheet was filed against them. Later, the case was transferred to the NIA, which sought additional time for investigation and was granted an extension by the special court.
Gadling has argued that the issue of the additional session judge’s jurisdiction was already raised during his first and subsequent remands.
However, the Special NIA Court rejected Gadling’s default bail application, stating that the matter had already been decided by the Bombay High Court and the applicant does not have any proprietary right to raise the same ground before the special court.
This case, Surendra Gadling vs State of Maharashtra, continues to be closely watched by legal observers, given its links to Naxalite activities and the involvement of top Maoist leaders, highlighting the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in dealing with anti-national and extremist elements in India.
Case Title:
Surendra Gadling vs State of Maharashtra
Click Here To Read More Reports on Amazon
