After 3 Supreme Court Judges Recuse, Surendra Gadling Requests CJI Kant To List Bail Plea In Surajgarh Arson Case

The Supreme Court today heard a mentioning made on behalf of Surendra Gadling concerning listing of his bail plea in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh arson case. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told a CJI Surya Kant led bench, "Another judge has recused..it may be listed..".

Last week, the Supreme Court deferred hearing Gadling's bail plea observing that the matter would be heard by a different Bench. The case was listed before a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.

Justice Mishra had observed that the matter would instead have to be listed before another Bench. "It will go before another combination. Brother has some difficulty," Justice Mishra remarked.

Surendra Gadling has sought bail in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, which is under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Previous Recusals

In April, Justice Atul Chandurkar withdrew from the proceedings when the case was taken up before a Bench also comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari. No reasons were assigned for the recusal.

Earlier, Justice M. M. Sundresh had also recused from the case, following which the matter continued before a bench led by Justice Maheshwari.

Gadling has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order that denied him bail in the Gadchiroli arson case. He has been in custody since June 2018 and is also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), over alleged Maoist links.

The prosecution alleges that Gadling was part of a larger Maoist conspiracy and had directed co-accused persons to set fire to more than 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from the Surjagarh mines in Etapalli tehsil of Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district. He has been booked under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code.

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court has, in earlier hearings, expressed concern over the prolonged incarceration of the accused without conclusion of trial. In September last year, the Bench had questioned whether an undertrial can be kept in custody for years without meaningful progress in proceedings. It had sought detailed responses from the State on the reasons for delay, the status of discharge applications, the prosecution’s trial plan, and the expected timeline for completion of trial.

During previous hearings, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, highlighted several procedural concerns, including the absence of a permanent public prosecutor in the trial court and the failure to supply copies of key electronic evidence, which he said overlaps with material in the Bhima Koregaon case. He also pointed to repeated technical glitches in video conferencing during Gadling’s production before the trial court.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju had informed the Court that an application to transfer relevant records from the Bhima Koregaon case was pending and that Gadling had yet to file a response. The Bench had earlier indicated that it would take up with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court the issue of appointing a judge to the designated NIA court, which is currently stated to be functioning without a regular presiding officer. It had also suggested appointing an officer to facilitate inspection of the voluminous electronic record by the defence to enable progress on the stage of framing of charges.

Gadling’s counsel had argued that the scale of electronic evidence was such that meaningful inspection could not be completed within a short time frame. However, the Court had directed that the process be initiated.

Notably, in October 2025, the Court had granted one weeks time to the State of Maharashtra for filing its affidavit in the bail plea. Previously, the Court was informed by the Maharashtra government that Gadling, accused in the Surajgarh Mine Arson Case, is one of the top comrades of the Maoist organisation. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, vehemently opposed his bail plea, and told Court that the case was "of Naxalite activities...attacking our jawans..these persons have provided the logistics..in the Maoist infected areas...".

On a question posed by the Bench on evidence collected in Bhima Koregaon case being used in the present case against Gadling, ASG had submitted, "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..".

"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..", Court was further told. ASG Raju had also told court that Naxalites thrive in underdeveloped areas, and the entire area of Gadchiroli being poor, was seeing development recently which the Naxalites did not want.

In January 2023, Nagpur Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had denied bail to Gadling in the Surajgarh Mine Arson Case.

Case Title: Surendra Pundalik Gadling v. State of Maharashtra

Mentioning Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Mentioning Date: July 27, 2026

https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/supreme-court-defers-hearing-on-surendra-gadlings-bail-plea-in-2016-surajgarh-arson-case-1614289