ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10946/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-05-2024 in IA No. 6711/2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore]

MOHAN LAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 179057/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; IA No. 179060/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 09-05-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv.

Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv.

Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv.

Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv.

Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv.

Mr. Saurabh Jha, Adv.

Mr. Deva Vrat Anand, Adv.

Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G.

Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, D.A.G.

Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Divya Swami, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

In the present petition, the petitioner seeks bail in Signactureo Nont Venrifieedction with FIR bearing Crime No.51 of 2018 dated 08.04.2018, Digitaly signed by

Date: 2025.05.09

1 R 6 e : a 4 s 8 o :4rn 6 : ISeTgistered at Police Station-Mohan Badodiya, District Shajapur,

Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was accused of purchasing the

prosecutrix from two men after paying a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees

One Lakh Eighty Thousand). It is stated that when the prosecutrix was located by the police, she was already married to the petitioner and they had a nine month old child in the year 2020. The petitioner has been in custody for a period of two years and nine months.

2. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is residing with the petitioner at his residence without raising any complaint and their daughter is now aged about five years. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has furnished her no objection in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation pertains to purchasing of the prosecutrix, who was a minor at the relevant time, and therefore, petitioner does not deserve bail, especially when the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced him to

20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

4. Having considered the matter in its entirety and taking into account the stand of the State in the counter affidavit, which accepts that the prosecutrix has married the petitioner and they have a child also, we are inclined to allow the prayer for bail.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. We are informed that the appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps to seek expeditious disposal of the appeal.

7. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)