Supreme Court Judge Recuses From Surendra Gadling Bail Plea In Gadchiroli Arson Case

Justice Atul Chandurkar withdrew from the proceedings when the case was taken up before a Bench also comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari.

No reasons were assigned for the recusal.

Earlier, Justice M. M. Sundresh had also recused from the case, following which the matter continued before a bench led by Justice Maheshwari.

Gadling has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order that denied him bail in the Gadchiroli arson case. He has been in custody since June 2018 and is also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), over alleged Maoist links.

The prosecution alleges that Gadling was part of a larger Maoist conspiracy and had directed co-accused persons to set fire to more than 80 vehicles transporting iron ore from the Surjagarh mines in Etapalli tehsil of Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district. He has been booked under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court has, in earlier hearings, expressed concern over the prolonged incarceration of the accused without conclusion of trial. In September last year, the Bench had questioned whether an undertrial can be kept in custody for years without meaningful progress in proceedings. It had sought detailed responses from the State on the reasons for delay, the status of discharge applications, the prosecution’s trial plan, and the expected timeline for completion of trial.

During previous hearings, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Gadling, highlighted several procedural concerns, including the absence of a permanent public prosecutor in the trial court and the failure to supply copies of key electronic evidence, which he said overlaps with material in the Bhima Koregaon case. He also pointed to repeated technical glitches in video conferencing during Gadling’s production before the trial court.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju informed the Court that an application to transfer relevant records from the Bhima Koregaon case was pending and that Gadling had yet to file a response.

The Bench had earlier indicated that it would take up with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court the issue of appointing a judge to the designated NIA court, which is currently stated to be functioning without a regular presiding officer. It had also suggested appointing an अधिकारी to facilitate inspection of the voluminous electronic record by the defence to enable progress on the stage of framing of charges.

Gadling’s counsel had argued that the scale of electronic evidence was such that meaningful inspection could not be completed within a short time frame. However, the Court had directed that the process be initiated.

Notably, in October 2025, the Court had granted one weeks time to the State of Maharashtra for filing its affidavit in the bail plea. Previously, the Court was informed by the Maharashtra government that Gadling, accused in the Surajgarh Mine Arson Case, is one of the top comrades of the Maoist organisation. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, vehemently opposed his bail plea, and told Court that the case was "of Naxalite activities...attacking our jawans..these persons have provided the logistics..in the Maoist infected areas...".