The bench, consisting of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, also deferred the hearing on a petition filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to activist Mahesh Raut by the Bombay High Court.
NEW DELHI: On February 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of India postponed the hearing on the bail pleas of advocate Surendra Gadling and activist Jyoti Jagtap, who were arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.
The bench, consisting of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, also deferred the hearing on a petition filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to activist Mahesh Raut by the Bombay High Court.
The case came to light due to the serious allegations against the accused, which include connections with Maoist insurgents. The NIA has contested the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Raut, arguing that the verdict should be stayed. The High Court’s order was temporarily paused after the NIA appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping to challenge the ruling.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, representing Surendra Gadling, strongly rejected the claims that his client was delaying the trial. Grover requested more time to present the necessary records in the case. Meanwhile, senior advocate Mihir Desai, representing Jyoti Jagtap and Mahesh Raut, urged the court to schedule the hearing as soon as possible.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the NIA, argued that the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahesh Raut was “absolutely perverse.” The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, decided to address all the matters together and adjourned the hearing to a later date.
Charges Against Surendra Gadling
Surendra Gadling has been accused of aiding Maoist groups and conspiring with several other accused, including those who have been absconding. Gadling faces serious charges under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution claims that Gadling provided secret information about government activities and shared maps of certain areas with Maoist rebels.
Gadling is also accused of encouraging Maoists to oppose the operation of Surjagarh mines. He allegedly instigated local people to join the Maoist movement. Additionally, he is involved in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, which relates to the provocative speeches made during the Elgar Parishad event held in Pune on December 31, 2017. These speeches are said to have sparked violence near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial in Pune on January 1, 2018.
Case of Jyoti Jagtap
Jyoti Jagtap is accused of being an active member of the Kabir Kala Manch (KKM), a cultural group allegedly linked to Maoist activities. During the Elgar Parishad event in 2017, KKM performed a play in which “aggressive, but highly provocative slogans” were reportedly delivered.
The Bombay High Court had observed,
“We are of the considered opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the allegations or accusations of the NIA against the appellant (Jagtap) having conspired, attempted, advocated and abetted the commission of a terrorist act as prima facie true.”
The NIA has stated that KKM is a front organization of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The High Court dismissed Jagtap’s appeal challenging a February 2022 decision by a special court, which had denied her bail.
ALSO READ: [Elgar Parishad-Maoist Links Case] Supreme Court Seeks NIA’s Stand on Interim Bail Plea
Background
The Elgar Parishad event was organized on December 31, 2017, at Shaniwarwada, a historic palace-fort in Pune. The event, which involved speeches and performances, is alleged to have incited violence the following day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial. The incident has led to ongoing investigations into the alleged Maoist connections of several individuals associated with the event.
The Supreme Court’s decision to delay the hearing reflects the complexities of the case, involving multiple accused, charges, and legal proceedings. The matter will continue to unfold as the court reviews the appeals and petitions filed by both the accused and the NIA.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
