Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Surendra Gadling in Surajgarh Mine Arson Case
Read Time: 06 minutes
Synopsis
The high court denied bail to Surendra Gadling while noting that there were grounds to believe that he had membership with the Communist Party of India
A Nagpur Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes on Tuesday denied bail to Surendra Gadling in the Surajgarh Mine Arson Case.
The case pertains to an incident wherein 39 vehicles transporting iron ore to Gadchiroli were allegedly set on fire by the Maoists. An FIR was registered by the police and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Maharashtra Police Act, and Arms act were invoked. Surendra Gadling was arrested along with the other accused in the case. The case was then investigated by the National Investigating Agency
Gadling had earlier approached the Sessions Court seeking bail, however the same was rejected and then he approached the high court seeking bail in the said case.
After hearing both sides, the court said that after considering the material on record there were grounds to believe that the case of the National Investigating Agency that Gadling was having direct membership of the banned organization i.e., Communist Party of India (Marxist). The order reads,
“On a consideration of the totality of the material on record alleged against the Appellant, we find that there is reasonable ground for believing the accusations of the National Investigation Agency against the Appellant having been part of a conspiracy and abetting the commission of terrorist acts, as also having direct membership of the banned organization Communist Party of India (Maoist) are prima facie to be true.”
The court further said that the chargesheet shows that a threat was posed to the public and the seriousness of the allegation outweighs the contentions of Gadling. The order reads,
“We have also considered that there is material on record of the charge-sheet would prima facie leads to the conclusion that the threat posed to the public and the seriousness of the entire conspiracy alleged against the Appellant would far out weigh the other considerations put forth by the Appellant, namely that he is a prominent Advocate with a long unblemished record at the bar, that he is the sole bread winner of his family or that he has not been involved in any earlier crime, would require to be rejected”
The court while upholding the order of Sessions' Judge was correct in arriving at the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made against the Appellant in the charge sheet are true. The order states,
“The learned Sessions Judge has also extensively considered the material on record and has, after applying the principles of law laid down in the various judgments of the Supreme Court on considerations for grant of bail in view of the provisions Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), correctly arrived at the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made against the Appellant in the charge-sheet are true”
Case Title: Surendra Gadling vs State of Maharashtra
Statue: Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Indian Penal Code 1860, Unlawful Prevention Activities Act 1967, Maharashtra Police Act 1951, Indian Arms Act 1951.