NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred its hearing on a bail plea by advocate Surendra Gadling, accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, to September 17.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and K Vinod Chandran adjourned the matter to September 17, after Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, for the prosecution, sought deferment of the bail plea.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, however, vehemently opposed the plea.
He urged the court not to defer the hearing as Gadling's plea was pending for disposal since 2023. The counsel contended Gadling has already spent over six years in prison without charges having been framed, and that the bail plea had been adjourned 11 times in the past.
The court, however, allowed the ASG's plea and fixed the matter for hearing on September 17.
On the last date of hearing in August 26, Justice M M Sundresh recused from hearing the bail plea of Gadling.
The bench then also comprised Justice N Kotiswar Singh.
The prosecution claimed in December 2016, many Maoists allegedly set fire over 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from Surjagarh 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 Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench 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 various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including that of 307 (Attempt to murder), 323 (Voluntarily vausing hurt), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy). He was also booked under Sections 5 and 28 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) 1967.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
