NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 21, 2026) deferred the bail application filed by lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling by one more month. Gadling has been in custody for nearly seven years in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, yet the trial is still in its preliminary stages.
A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi adjourned the matter after proposing a strict timeline to ensure that the trial, which has been stalled for years, finally moves forward.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed its intention to break the procedural deadlock. The Court suggested appointing an officer to ensure that the trial records are brought to the Court for inspection by both sides.
"We want to propose something. We say that the trial is pending... let one officer be appointed who will get that record to the Court. Both of you (Gadling's counsel and the State's counsel) can inspect. We can give a week’s time. Thereafter, let the charges be framed and dates be fixed and arguments be advanced," the Bench observed.
The Court noted that while these procedural steps are being taken, the bail plea would be heard again in a month.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, strongly argued for his client’s release, highlighting the extreme delay in the legal process. He pointed out that even basic requirements, like producing the accused through Video Conferencing (VC), have failed repeatedly.
"Again there is delay. They couldn’t produce me (Gadling). Three times I was produced, VC did not work. Their application has been forwarded to sessions court. It hasn’t been taken up at all," Grover argued.
When the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju rebutted, saying there was "no delay," Grover reacted passionately on behalf of his client:
"My liberty is deprived. There is no case against me on merits. I am in jail for 7 years! What is this country coming to? This is a very serious case... It (the record) can’t be done in one week."
Grover further raised concerns regarding the availability of electronic evidence, which forms a major part of the prosecution's case. He requested the Court for the liberty to argue the bail plea strictly on its merits during the next hearing if no progress is seen in the trial. The Court accepted this request.
The Supreme Court also took note of the administrative hurdles in the trial. The Bench stated it would enquire with the Registry of the Bombay High Court to confirm if a trial judge is currently available in the NIA Court, Mumbai, to hear the case.
"We will pass an order after talking to the Chief Justice (of Bombay High Court), to ensure trial courts are not vacant and judges are assigned," the Bench added.
The matter traces back to December 2016, when approximately 39 vehicles (some reports say 76) used for transporting iron ore from the Surajgarh mines in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, were allegedly set on fire by Maoist groups.
The Gadchiroli Police registered an FIR involving several serious charges:
- Indian Penal Code (IPC): Attempt to murder (Sec 307), Criminal Conspiracy (Sec 120-B), Rioting, and Mischief by fire.
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Sections 16, 18, 20, and 23, relating to terrorist activities and membership of a banned organization.
Surendra Gadling, a well-known human rights lawyer who has represented many activists in the past, was implicated in this case. The prosecution alleges that he provided logistics, secret information, and maps to Maoist rebels to help them oppose mining operations.
Gadling is also a prominent accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case, which is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He was arrested in June 2018 and has remained behind bars ever since.
While some other accused in the Bhima Koregaon case have been granted bail on various grounds, Gadling continues to be in judicial custody at the Taloja Central Prison, facing multiple trials that are yet to conclude.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had rejected his bail in the Surajgarh case in January 2023, observing that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe the accusations against him were true. The current proceedings in the Supreme Court are an appeal against that High Court order.
The case of Surendra Gadling has become a point of discussion in legal circles regarding the "right to a speedy trial" under Article 21 of the Constitution. Legal experts often point to the KA Najeeb judgment, where the Supreme Court held that even under strict laws like UAPA, courts can grant bail if the trial is being delayed indefinitely, as "procedure cannot become punishment."
With the Supreme Court now intervening to check for judge vacancies and fixing a one-month deadline for record inspection, the legal community is watching closely to see if Gadling will finally be heard on the merits of his case or if his seven-year wait will continue.
Case Title: Surendra Gadling v. State of Maharashtra
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi