Bombay HC Grants Bail to Gadling After 8 Years

In a crucial development for one of India's most contentious terror-related cases, the Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to human rights lawyer Surendra Gadling in the Bhima Koregaon matter, after he had endured more than eight years in custody as an undertrial. A bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata ruled that " prolonged incarceration as an undertrial prisoner is a ground for relief " , underscoring the unacceptably long delay in commencing the trial. Notably, the court also invoked the principle of parity , observing that all other co-accused have already been released on bail. However, Gadling's freedom is short-lived; he will remain behind bars pending a Supreme Court decision on his bail application in a separate 2016 arson case in Gadchiroli.

This ruling marks the end of pre-trial detention for all surviving accused in the eight-year-old case, except for the tragic death of activist Stan Swamy in custody. For legal practitioners tracking high-stakes national security litigation, the decision reinforces evolving bail jurisprudence under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) , where investigative delays cannot indefinitely justify liberty deprivation.

The Bhima Koregaon Violence and Alleged Conspiracy

The Bhima Koregaon case stems from violent clashes on January 1, 2018 , near Pune, Maharashtra, a day after the Elgar Parishad—a conclave commemorating the 200th anniversary of the 1818 Battle of Bhima Koregaon between British forces and Peshwa rulers. The event, attended by activists, Dalit leaders, and scholars, turned deadly when caste-based tensions erupted, resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to several others.

The Pune Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) swiftly intervened, arresting 16 persons, including academics, lawyers, poets, and tribal rights activists, on allegations of Maoist links. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe, filing chargesheets accusing the Elgar Parishad of being a front for a larger CPI(Maoist) conspiracy. Prosecutors alleged the event was designed to stoke caste violence, destabilize the Union government, and even assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi—claims bolstered by purported letters and documents recovered from accused devices.

Gadling, a Pune-based lawyer known for defending Adivasi rights and cases against alleged Maoist insurgents, was among the first arrested by the ATS in June 2018 . The gravity of charges under UAPA, which imposes strict bail conditions (proving innocence rather than presumption of innocence ), set the stage for prolonged battles over liberty.

Timeline of the Case and Gadling's Arrest

The investigation's procedural history is a textbook example of protracted probes in terror cases. The ATS filed its first chargesheet in November 2018 against initial accused, followed by a supplementary chargesheet in February 2019 after securing an extension. In 2020 , the case transferred to the NIA, with a special NIA court in Mumbai assuming jurisdiction.

Despite these milestones, as of 2024 —over six years post-chargesheet—the trial has yet to commence. This inertia has been a recurring grievance for the defense, invoking Article 21 's guarantee of a speedy trial.

Surendra Gadling's ordeal began with his June 2018 arrest. He promptly sought default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC , arguing the initial 90-day investigation period lapsed without a complete chargesheet. The special court rejected this, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court . Subsequent regular bail pleas faced similar fates until this latest High Court intervention.

Previous Bail Denials and Procedural History

Gadling's earlier bail rejections highlighted the high threshold in UAPA cases. In Supreme Court precedent like Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019), bail is denied if prima facie case of unlawful activity exists, shifting the burden to the accused. Default bail denials rested on technical extensions granted to investigators.

The NIA opposed Gadling's recent plea, citing the case's seriousness and his involvement in other matters, including the 2016 arson. Yet, the Bombay HC bench prioritized constitutional imperatives over prosecutorial assertions.

High Court's Reasoning: Prolonged Detention and Parity

Delivering the order, Justices Gadkari and Khata noted, " Gadling had spent more than eight years in custody " , emphasizing that "the trial in the matter was yet to begin." This echoed the Supreme Court 's stance in cases like Vernon Gonsalves ( 2024 ), where bail was granted on merits despite UAPA charges, recognizing detention as punitive absent trial.

Crucially, the court invoked parity , stating " all other accused in the case have already been granted bail, and that he should receive the same relief on grounds of parity ." Parity, while not absolute, gains strength in identical fact situations, preventing selective prosecution.

Conditions likely attached include not tampering with evidence, reporting to NIA, and refraining from anti-national activities—standard in such grants.

All Co-Accused Now on Bail – Except One Tragedy

With Gadling's release, every accused from the 16 arrested is now on bail:

  • Bombay HC grants: Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Sudha Bharadwaj, Anand Teltumbde, Hany Babu.
  • Supreme Court grants: Varavara Rao (medical grounds), Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira (merits); Gautam Navlakha, Jyoti Jagtap.

Tragically, 84-year-old Jesuit priest Stan Swamy died in July 2021 from COVID-19 complications while in custody, his Parkinson's worsening without adequate medical aid. His death spotlighted custodial dehumanization, prompting NHRC probes.

Gadling's Continued Detention in 2016 Arson Case

Despite Bhima Koregaon relief, Gadling remains incarcerated over the 2016 Surajgarh arson in Gadchiroli, where over 80 vehicles transporting iron ore were torched. Booked for criminal conspiracy, his bail plea pends before the Supreme Court . This overlap exemplifies how multiple FIRs can prolong detention, challenging default bail strategies under CrPC.

Legal Analysis: Bail in UAPA Cases and Speedy Trial Rights

This ruling navigates the tension between national security and personal liberty. UAPA's Section 43D(5) mimics TADA / POTA 's stringent bail, but courts have carved exceptions:

  • K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021, SC): Art. 21 trumps UAPA if trial delay is egregious.
  • Recent SC bails in this very case signal a pragmatic shift post-Watali, prioritizing " bail is the rule, jail exception ."

Gadling's case amplifies Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar (1979)'s speedy trial mandate, with NIA's 5-year chargesheet-to-trial lag indefensible. Parity draws from State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011), binding in consanguineous charges.

Critics argue NIA's "digital evidence" (hacked letters via Arsenal tool, later questioned) lacks forensic rigor, bolstering bail claims.

Implications for India's Justice System

For legal professionals, this verdict is a toolkit addition: Document trial delays meticulously; leverage parity affidavits; cite undertrial stats (76% of prisoners per NCRB 2023). It pressures NIA/Special Courts for timelines under NIA Act .

Broader ripples: Fuels debate on UAPA misuse against dissenters (Amnesty/HRW reports); may accelerate Bhima Koregaon trial via HC monitoring. Amid 5 lakh undertrials nationwide, it advocates legislative fixes like time-bound probes.

Practitioners in anti-terror practice should note HC's balancing: Security concerns acknowledged, but not at liberty's absolute cost.

Conclusion: A Step Towards Justice?

Surendra Gadling's bail symbolizes incremental justice in a case mired in controversy. While he awaits SC reprieve on the arson charge, the Bombay HC's order—rooted in constitutional ethos—nudges India's system toward accountability. As the Bhima Koregaon trial looms, it remains a litmus test for fair process in politically charged probes. Legal eagles will watch if this parity cascade hastens adjudication, or if appeals prolong the limbo.