New Delhi: Human rights lawyer Surendra Pundalik Gadling has spent more than six-and-a-half years in custody as an undertrial in the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, with the trial still stalled at the stage of framing of charges.
Gadling, also an accused in the Elgar Parishad–Koregaon Bhima case, was granted interim bail last week in this matter by an NIA court in Mumbai to attend the last rites of a family member. However, the Surajgarh case has seen no significant progress since his arrest on 30 January, 2019. The case has seen 137 listings in the trial court of Gadchiroli and 62 in the nearby Aheri court, where the case was transferred on 22 July, 2023, due to jurisdictional changes following the establishment of a sessions court in Aheri.
Gadling’s case has not proceeded to even cross the first stage of a criminal trial, with the court yet to commence hearing on framing of charges. This, even though the chargesheet in the 2016 arson case was filed on 1 June, 2019.
A chargesheet is the police’s final report in a case, and it is submitted to the court to formally accuse the individual of a crime. Based on the chargesheet and other evidence, the court decides and articulates the specific offenses for which the accused will be tried. Examination of evidence in a criminal trial takes place only once the court frames charges.
Trial court orders, which ThePrint looked at, show that between 2019 and 2022 (when Gadling was arrested in the Elgar Parishad–Bhima Koregaon case), the Surajgarh matter was adjourned on multiple ground such as the absence of the presiding officer, adjournments sought by both the prosecution and the accused, COVID-19 restrictions, weak internet connection due to which Gadling could not mark his presence from jail, and his inability to submit a power of attorney to enable someone to represent him in court.
As part of a fair trial procedure, an accused is required to be present when the court hears arguments on framing of charges. Gadling was arrested in the Surajgarh case on the basis of an FIR registered at the Etapalli police station in the Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra.
The case relates to an incident in December 2016 when a group of suspected Maoists torched mining equipment at Surajgarh, a region where tribal opposition to mining projects has been longstanding. They set ablaze 76 vehicles being used for transporting iron ore from Surajgarh mines in Gadchiroli. The FIR invoked sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act.
A chargesheet was filed against six persons: Gadling, writer Varavara Rao, and tribals namely Masa Mura Hichami, Lalu Kehka Gundaru, Thuge Dalsu Hichami, and Dinesh Masu Pungati. Trial proceedings began in the Gadchiroli Court in July 2019 and continued until July 2023, when the case was transferred to the Aheri court.
Yet, after years of hearings, the trial has not progressed to the stage of framing of charges.
Also Read: Trial will take years & years & years:’ SC grants bail to Bhima Koregaon accused Gautam Navlakha
Trial that never took off
In the four years between 2019 and 2023, before the case was moved to the Aheri court, the Gadchiroli district court did not hear the case on 61 dates, out of 137 times it was listed.
For nine months, March to December 2020, the matter wasn’t taken up due to COVID-19 restrictions. Thereafter, adjournments were granted frequently.
On 16 occasions, hearings were put off because the presiding officer was on tour, absent, or sought more time or the court ran out of time, according to case details on the court website.
On eight occasions, the defense sought adjournments and time, and on seven, it was the government prosecutor who sought time or was absent.
On two dates, neither prosecution nor defense appeared in court.
Procedural lapses & technical failures
Gadling never appeared physically in the trial court, not even after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. His applications and letters, requesting the same, remain pending till now.
Even when he did appear via video conferencing, the hearings were affected due to microphone and video issues from the court’s side, the presiding officer not being there, and because of power and internet connectivity issues (on six occasions) in the Taloja jail where Gadling was lodged, according to order details.
A lot of times, court records show, he was not produced in the court even via video conferencing without any reason attributed.
Beyond adjournments, the trial was derailed by administrative lapses too.
Gadling, a lawyer, wanted to argue his case himself, but could not make any presentation in the court as he was not produced for the first two years after his arrest in 2019. After which, in August 2021, he appointed Advocate Jagish Meshram to represent him.
Bhima-Koregaon connection
The Surajgarh trial became entangled with the 2018 Elgar Parishad–Bhima Koregaon case, in which Gadling is also an accused. In August 2022, the Maharashtra police argued before the Gadchiroli court that trial in the Surajgarh case could only proceed after the end of Bhima-Koregaon case trial, citing overlaps in evidence and allegations.
This stance effectively tethered Gadling’s detention in the Surajgarh matter to the fate of the Bhima-Koregaon proceedings, which themselves have seen little to no progress.
Despite being before a special NIA court in Mumbai for seven years, charges have not been framed in this case too.
In June 2025, the Maharashtra police withdrew its position that the trial in the Surajgarh case cannot proceed unless the Bhima-Koregan case has been decided. But nearly three years had been lost by then.
Following his arrest in the Bhima-Koregaon case, Gadling could never appear in the Gadchiroli and then Aheri trial court. This is because he has not yet been served with a jail warrant, which is essential to produce an accused already in custody before another court.
As per the criminal procedure, an accused in judicial custody is required to be produced before the court after every 14 days.
Since he was lodged in Taloja jail in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case, the Gadchiroli court needed to issue a warrant to secure his presence in the Surajgarh trial. Gadling has not received a jail warrant till date, as confirmed by his son and advocate Sumit Gadling.
It is also pertinent to note that the Surajgarh case’s Chemical Analyser (CA) report, which is a forensic examination report of material seized during the investigation, was never filed even though the court asked the police to do so in every hearing.
Sumit Gadling confirmed this as well, adding the report is yet to be filed.
The CA report provides scientific analysis of physical evidence, such as blood, semen or other biological samples and becomes a part of the documentary evidence.
In the Elgar Parishand case, the Special NIA court had granted him interim bail in December 2023 too for a wedding in the family.
But in the Surajgarh case, his bail application was rejected by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court that year, saying he was arrested in the Bhima-Koregaon case and faces serious charges. After that, he moved the Supreme Court in the Surajgarh case.
In the top court, hearing on his bail application has seen 17 adjournments in two years, the latest just a few days ago.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: New book investigates Bhima Koregaon—‘riots are manufactured, not spontaneous’