News By/Courtesy: MAAHI TRIVEDI | 31 Jul 2021 13:02pm IST


  • The Special Judge D.E. Kothalikar's appeal of September 2020, which denied him an emergency bail was brought before the High Court under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act.
  • The court disagreed with NIA's claim that the case of Gadling does not survive under the 21st appeal of the NIA Act, which saw his mother pass last year.
  • In the case, charges are yet to be lodged.

Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad was given provisional bail in Bombay on Friday. Surendra Gadling was charged with attending his mother's anniversary of death from August 13 to 21. A division chairman of Justice SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar noted that there was no request for temporary relief for humanitarian reasons for the strict rules of regular relief under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court ruled hence in the decision in the case of Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the National Investigation Agency, the bail could not be used for a purely humanitarian reasons following the loss of a parent. It does not appear from the review of the challenged judgement that the NIA Court has taken the matter from a humanitarian viewpoint. N our opinion, in importing the factors which arise when ordinary bail is granted for humanitarian relief, the NIA Court misled itself.

Therefore, in view of considering the prayers for temporary bail in order to take part in the last rites/rituals of the appellant's dead mother, it does not appear to be well-founded in the judgement of the national investigative agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, which rules the grant of a regular bail. "The stated objection appears unsustainable on a compassionate basis, as the circumstances of the case and the nature of the praying justify... The appellant was not asked to be freed to attend his departed mother's funeral. It was a prayer that he was released so that he could join his family to do the rites. From this point of view, the appellant may not say that Shraddha Talekar is impractical or unsustainable in its claims that the ceremonies, rituals and condolences that have been maintained in obedience are to be conducted and held on its first death anniversary." The bench observed that the pleas of Gadling were not unwarranted.

The prevailing social construction has an element of religious, personal and emotional importance on the first anniversary of a family member's death. The appellant was certainly unable to take part in any rite/ritual related to his mother's death. We do not find the appellants' petition unreasonable when we look at this lens. With regard to the condition in the life of the appellant, as the record confirms, the reason why we cannot think that the appellant can abstain is reasonable.

Section Editor: Miss Lucky Sinha | 01 Aug 2021 10:08am IST



Latest News

Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.