On 2 April 2026, Supreme Court judge Justice Atul Chandurkar did not take part in hearing a bail plea filed by lawyer Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case.

The case was listed before a bench of Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice JK Maheshwari.

Recusal:

Earlier, Justice MM Sundresh had already stepped aside from the case. After that, a bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari heard the matter. On 2nd April, although Justice Chandurkar was part of the bench, he recused himself from the case.

Case Background:

Surendra Gadling has filed this appeal challenging the Bombay High Court order that refused him bail in the arson case. He has also been in custody in the Bhima Koregaon case, which is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), over alleged Maoist links, since June 2018.

Gadling has been charged under several provisions of the UAPA and IPC for allegedly participating in a Maoist plot to burn more than 80 vehicles carrying iron ore from the Surjagarh mines in Etapalli tehsil, Gadchiroli district, Maharashtra. The prosecution has alleged that he gave instructions to other accused persons to set the vehicles on fire and cause damage to property.

Bench Status:

This bench is hearing the case after Justice MM Sundresh recused himself.

In September, the Court expressed concern about how long the trial in this case has been pending. It questioned whether a person can be held in custody as an undertrial for many years.

Court Questions:

The Court also asked the State to provide the following information:

(a) what is the reason for the delay in the trial;

(b) why discharge applications are not being processed;

(c) the prosecution’s plan, including how the trial will be handled for co-accused individuals who have not yet been arrested; and

(d) how long it will take the prosecution to complete the trial.

Judge Posting Issue:

On the previous date, the Supreme Court said it would check with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to find out whether a judge has been appointed in the concerned NIA court.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Surendra Gadling, said that the main evidence is electronic and similar to the Bhima Koregaon case, but copies have not been provided. He also pointed out that there has been no permanent Public Prosecutor for the trial.

However, ASG SV Raju said that Gadling has not yet responded to an application to transfer Bhima Koregaon records, which is pending before the trial court. Grover said he would file the response soon.

After reports of technical problems during Gadling’s court production, the Court asked Maharashtra authorities to ensure proper video conferencing facilities. Grover told the Court that the State’s request has been sent to the NIA court in Mumbai but has not yet been heard, and that the system failed on five hearing dates. He also said that Gadling has been in custody for seven years without getting a chance for trial.

Access to Evidence:

Justice JK Maheshwari suggested that an officer be appointed to give Surendra Gadling access to the electronic record so he can review it and make suggestions on the framing of charges.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover said that the electronic evidence is too large to review in one week. However, the Court directed him to complete the review within a week.

Grover said that there is currently no judge or permanent Public Prosecutor in the NIA court.

Court Direction:

The bench said it will ask the Chief Justice to appoint a judge within a week. The Court also agreed to Grover’s request for one more month to argue the case if no progress is made, and then adjourned the matter.

Case no. Crl.A. No. 3742/2023

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra