2016 Surjagad mine arson case: SC questions Maharashtra on prolonged trial against Surendra Gadling

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Maharashtra government over the prolonged pendency of trial proceedings against advocate Surendra Gadling, an accused in the 2016 Surjagad iron ore mine arson case.

The top court asked whether an accused person can be kept in custody for a longer period of time as an undertrial in a case.

Hearing bail plea of Gadling, a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi asked the Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the Maharashtra government, as to why the trial was not proceeding so far and for how many years an accused person could be kept in custody without trial.

Raju said that the delay in trial was not because of the prosecution but due to Gadling himself. He said the accused had filed a discharge application and refused to argue it unless he was permitted to be physically present in court.

"He cannot be physically produced due to security concerns," he said.

The court asked the Maharashtra government to file a detailed reply, explaining the reasons for the delay, how the prosecution requires the trial to proceed, and how long the prosecution would take to complete the trial and adjourned the hearing. 

It was alleged on December 2016, many Maoists allegedly set fire over 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagad mines in Etapalli tehsil. The allegations against Gadling was that he had given directions to other accused to set the vehicles on fire and cause loss of property in the Surjagad incident.

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court had rejected Gadling's bail plea application after noting that he was part of a criminal conspiracy to abet terrorist acts.

The police arrested Gadling under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) 1967 and for other offences under the panel law.