Case Details

• Diary No.: 24754/2025

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Court No. 3, Section II-A)

• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan (Partial Court Working Days Bench)

• Type of Petition: Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

• Impugned Order: Dated 10-12-2024 in *MCRC No. 41694/2024* by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Principal Seat at Jabalpur)

Key Proceedings

1. Hearing Date: 11-Jun-2025

2. Appearances:
   Petitioner (Aamir Ajeeb):
   Senior Advocate Mr. S.K. Gangele
   Advocates Mr. Sidhartha Shukla, Ms. Priya Sharma, Ms. Ritu Gangele, and AOR Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare.
   Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh): Not represented in this hearing.

3. Interim Applications Filed:
   IA No. 143053/2025: Condonation of delay in filing.
   IA No. 143054/2025: Exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
   IA No. 143055/2025: Exemption from filing other documents (O.T.).

4. Court’s Order:
   The Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s senior counsel two weeks to submit the orders passed in previous criminal cases against the petitioner, as referenced in Page ‘C’ (Synopsis) of the paper book.

Judgment Research Format

1. Case Citation

Aamir Ajeeb vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Diary No. 24754/2025 (Supreme Court of India, Order dated 11-Jun-2025).

2. Issues Raised

• Whether the delay in filing the SLP should be condoned (IA No. 143053/2025).

• Whether exemptions from filing procedural documents (impugned judgment copy and O.T.) should be granted (IA Nos. 143054-143055).

• Submission of past criminal case orders to assess the petitioner’s legal history.

3. Court’s Direction

• The petitioner must furnish details of previous criminal cases within two weeks for further adjudication.

4. Next Steps

• Compliance with the directive by 25-Jun-2025.

• Subsequent hearing likely to address the merits of the SLP after submission of requisite documents.

5. Legal Significance

• The order emphasizes procedural compliance in SLPs, particularly concerning past criminal records.

• Exemptions sought (if granted) may streamline future filings in similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim order focuses on documentary compliance before proceeding to substantive arguments. The petitioner’s criminal history will likely influence the admission of the SLP. The case is adjourned for two weeks to await the submission of the required orders.