Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vikram Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2026
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-E
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). 11949/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-05-2026
in MCRC No. 20907/2026 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Gwalior]
VIKRAM SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
IA No. 187446/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 187445/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 187444/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 10-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Chandra Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Pradhuman Pathak, Adv.
Mrs. Gargi Khanna, AOR
Mr. Lalit Khanna, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
1. Heard Mr. Ishan Kapoor, learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.07.10
16:55:40 IST
Reason: petitioner and Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing
1
for the respondent-State, on advance notice.
2. The petitioner calls in question the correctness of
the order dated 08.05.2026 in Misc. Criminal Case NO. 20907
of 2026, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior. By the said order, the petitioner has
been denied the benefit of bail in connection with FIR No.
233 of 2025, registered with Mahila Thana Police Station,
District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, for the offences
punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already undergone 01 year and 01 month in
custody. Learned counsel further submits that taking the
case of the prosecution at the highest, the petitioner was
only the manager and not the main accused. Learned counsel
submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the State, however, vehemently
defend the impugned order.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner has undergone 01 year and
01 month in custody, and keeping in mind the fact that the
trial is bound to take a considerable time, we are inclined
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner be
enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial
2
Court in connection with the aforesaid FIR for the offences
mentioned hereinabove.
7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the
above terms.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(RAHUL KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
