Surendra Gadling vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

2026:BHC-AS:22143-DB
DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2024
Adv. Surendra Gadling ]
Age : 50 years, Occupation : Lawyer ]
Indian inhabitant, Residing at Misal ]
Lay-out, Bhim Chowk, P.S. Jaripatka, ]
Nagpur – 440 014 ]
Currently lodged in Yeravada Central ]
Prison Pune, District : Pune ] … Appellant
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through the Investigating Officer, ]
ACP, Swargate, Pune City, Pune ]
2. National Investigating Agency, ]
Through Its Superintendent ]
Vikram Khatate, Off: Cumbala Hill, ]
Peddar Road, Mumbai ] … Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Adv. Susan
Abraham, Mr. Chinmay Godse, Mr. Nagraj Tarade and Ms. Divya Singh i/b
Rahul Arote for Appellant.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India a/w Mr. Chintan Shah,
Special P.P., Mr. Sagar Bhandare, P.P., Ms. Rama Gupta, Mr. Krishnakant
Deshmukh and Mr. Adarsh Vyas for Respondent No.2-NIA.
Mr. Vishal Gaikwad, Dy.S.P., NIA, Mumbai, present.
Mr. Akhilesh Singh, P.I., NIA, Mumbai, present.
_______________________________________
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
DATE : 4 May 2026
JUDGMENT : (Per : A.S. Gadkari, J.) :-
1) This is an Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short ‘NIA Act’) by the original Accused
th
No.3, impugning the Order dated 6 November 2019, passed in Criminal Bail
Application No. 3170 of 2018, in Special A.T.S. No. 1 of 2018, by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned Order, the Application for
bail filed by the Appellant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for the offences punishable under Sections 121,
121-A, 124-A, 153-A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1872 (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA Act), has been rejected by
the trial Court.
th
2) The present Appeal was filed on 17 December 2019. The
reasons for pendency of Appeal for several years can be easily discerned from
the various Orders passed prior to this.
3) It is an admitted fact on record that, all the other 15 co-accused
have been granted bail either by this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and he is the only Appellant, who is still behind bars. It is further an
admitted fact on record that, as of today, the Appellant has undergone about
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
7 years and 11 months in pre-trial incarceration i.e. much more than the
other accused persons, who have been released on bail by this Court. The
Appellant is therefore entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity
with other accused persons and predominantly with Sudhir Dhavale (accused
No.1) and Hany Babu (accused No. 12).
4) Mr. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, opposed
the Appeal. He submitted that, the Appellant is also an accused in Sessions
Case No. 57 of 2023, pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. He submitted that, offence alleged therein
is of a more serious nature, than the case in hand, and therefore, the
Appellant ought not be released on bail. He submitted that, in the case of
Gulfisha Fatima Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 10, in para Nos. 56, 58 and 61, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reconsidered the position of prolonged incarceration of an accused person
and has also distinguished the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb . He
submitted that, mere prolonged incarceration cannot be the sole ground for
releasing an accused on bail. He therefore prayed that, the Appeal may be
dismissed.
5) A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , in
paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 has held as under:
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not
oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,
both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the
courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down
where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed
sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the
possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for
wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact
that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave
and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at
the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the
respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of
the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of
the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court
appears to have been left with no other option except to grant
bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between
the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and
establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously
the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our
Constitution have been well protected.”
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
6) After applying the ratio enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) and in the light of
admitted facts noted hereinabove, we are of the view that, the Appellant is
entitled to be released on bail during the pending of his Appeal.
7) Hence, the following Order :-
th
[i] The impugned Order dated 6 November 2019, passed in
Criminal Bail Application No. 3170 of 2018, in Special
A.T.S. No. 1 of 2018 is set aside;
[ii] Appellant is directed to be released on bail in C.R. No. 4 of
2018, originally registered with Vishrambaug Police
Station, Pune and culminated into filing of Special A.T.S.
No. 1 of 2018, which is now converted into Special Case
No. 414 of 2020, pending on the file of learned Special
Judge, (NIA Act), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Mumbai, on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- with one or more solvent local sureties to make
up the amount;
[iii] Before his release from jail, the Appellant shall inform the
NIA, Mumbai, so also to the trial Court, his prospective
place of residence;
[iv] Appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, in his
possession, before the trial Court, before his release from
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
Jail;
[v] Appellant shall also provide his mobile and/or landline
number to NIA, Mumbai and to the trial Court, on which
he can be contacted;
[vi] Till the Appellant complies with the aforesaid conditions
No.(ii) to (v), the Appellant is permitted to furnish cash
surety of Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court;
[vii] After the Appellant complies with the afore-noted
condition Nos. (ii) to (v) above, the Appellant is entitled
for return of the said cash security amount from the trial
Court;
[viii] After his release from jail, the Appellant shall attend the
office of NIA, Mumbai on every first Monday of every
calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and
shall mark his presence till the conclusion of trial;
[ix] Appellant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court without prior permission of the learned Special
Judge, (NIA Act), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Mumbai, seized of Special Case No.414 of 2020;
[x] Appellant shall attend all the dates before the trial Court
unless precluded on medical grounds;
6/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::

DTG 58-Apeal-1342-2024.doc
[xi] Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses
and/or evidence in any manner.
8) Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
9) All the concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of
this Judgment.
( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
7/7
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 17:38:15 :::