THE SUPREME COURT ON WEDNESDAY gave the Maharashtra government a final opportunity to submit its affidavit in response to a petition filed by advocate Surendra Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surjagarh iron ore mine arson case.
A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the State one more week to file its affidavit, making it clear that this would be the last extension. The direction came after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Maharashtra government, sought more time to file the affidavit.
Appearing for Gadling, Senior Advocate Anand Grover strongly objected to the delay, pointing out that nearly six weeks had elapsed since the Court had last (September 24) asked the State to explain the reasons behind the delay in trial. He argued that such delays were unjustified and added to the prolonged incarceration of Gadling.
In the earlier hearings, while pressing for bail, Grover had told the Court that Gadling had been in jail for the last six and a half years and, under the K.A. Najeeb judgement (2021) was entitled to bail on this ground alone.
The Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in the K.A. Najeeb case had held that constitutional courts have the power to grant bail to an accused person if their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is violated, even if the person is charged under the restrictive provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’). The ruling affirmed that statutory restrictions on bail do not override the constitutional rights of an individual.
The Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in the K.A. Najeeb case had held that constitutional courts have the power to grant bail to an accused person if their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is violated.
Grover also told the Court that the prosecution had relied on electronic evidence collected in the Bhima Koregaon case, which did not follow legal procedures, as the hash value was not ascertained at the time of seizure, and the forensic analysis was conducted by a lab not recognised by law.
He also told the Court that the statement of the only witness in the present case, fielded by the prosecution, does not support its version of the events.
The Supreme Court, by its February 1, 2021, order in the K.A. Najeeb case, had stated:
“It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution (guaranteeing fundamental rights). Indeed, both the restrictions under the statute, as well as the powers exercisable under the constitutional jurisdiction, can be well harmonised.
Whereas at the commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against the grant of bail, but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
The judgment was pronounced by Justice Surya Kant, who was part of the Bench headed by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, who has since retired.
In last hearing, Court had asked Maharashtra to clarify reasons for delay in trial
In the last hearing of the matter on September 24, the Supreme Court had asked the Maharashtra government to clarify the reasons for the delay in the trial and directed the prosecution to explain the same.
The Court had also sought an explanation as to why the applications for discharge had been pending for a long time. It directed that the reasons for their non-disposal be stated in an affidavit, along with a summary of the relevant order sheets.
The Court had also sought an explanation as to why the applications for discharge had been pending for a long time.
Additionally, the Bench had asked the State to outline the scheme of prosecution—specifically, how and in what manner the trial is proposed to proceed, including details regarding the split of the trial with respect to other co-accused who have been arrested so far.
The Court had further directed that the affidavit must also indicate the estimated time frame within which the prosecution intends to complete the trial.