The lawyer is part of conspiracy for Naxal, terrorist acts in Gadchiroli, observed the High Court
Nagpur: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes at the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court have dismissed the appeal filed by the Nagpur lawyer, Surendra Gadling (55), against rejection of his application for regular bail by the Sessions Court, Gadchiroli, with observation that the court prima facie believes the NIA’s accusations that appellant was part of a conspiracy and abetting the terrorist acts.
Also the division bench noted that they also believed that the applicant is also having direct membership of the banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) are true. Adv Gadling’s bail was rejected on March 28, 2022, following which he preferred appeal before HC. The HC has also considered that there is material on record by way of chargesheet leading to the prima facie conclusion that the threat posed to the public and seriousness of the entire conspiracy alleged against the appellant would far outweigh the other considerations urged by the appellant.
Today’s Rate
Tues 19 Nov. 2024
Citing the letters and hard-disk recovered from his home, the division bench held that he was not just engaged as a lawyer of some of the members of the banned organization, but was also involved in raising finance, shifting money from one place to other, and providing financial support to its cadre in Gadchiroli.
“There are direct references of his name in a letter written by ‘Comrade Milind’ to the incident at Surjagarh Hills in the Naxal-infested district. On a consideration of the totality of the material on record alleged against the petitioner, we find that there is reasonable ground for believing the accusations of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against him,” the court said.
Gadling through counsel Firdos Mirza had filed an appeal under the NIA Act, 2008, challenging the Gadchiroli sessions court’s verdict of March 28, 2022, refusing to grant him bail.
The case was based on a complaint filed by Rajvindarsing Harising Shergil, who claimed that about 100 to 150 trucks of transport companies were detained by armed men in olive green uniforms (Naxals) on December 22, 2016.
The drivers were asked to alight and were taken to a forest where they were thrashed. The outlaws were chanting slogans such as ‘Communist Party Zindabad, Maoist Organization Zindabad, Lal Salaam Zindabad’, making direct references to the CPI (Maoist) that was banned under the schedule to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Also, 39 vehicles were set afire after breaking open their diesel tanks, clearly demonstrating the intent of the mob, and the fact that they were acting in concert and with the common intent of terrorising the truck drivers and cleaners, said the complaint.
Quoting HC orders in another accused Hany Babu’s case, the judges said it made reference to the analysis of the seized electronic or digital articles from Gadling’s residence and his involvement in the case along with other accused like Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, comrade M alias Milind Teltumbade (now deceased), comrade Prakash alias Navin alias Ritupan Goswami (absconding), comrade Manglu (absconding), comrade Dipu (absconding), who allegedly committed acts punishable under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA.
“We have considered that there is material on record of the charge-sheet that would prima facie lead to the conclusion that the threat posed to the public and the seriousness of the entire conspiracy alleged against the petitioner would far outweigh the other considerations put forth by him, like he is a prominent advocate with a long unblemished record at the bar, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family or that he has not been involved in any earlier crime, would require to be rejected,” the judges said.
Advocates FirdosMirza and Nihalsing Rathod appeared for the appellant. Special PP Neeraj Jawade represented the State.
