ANGEL GUPTA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner. Co-accused has not stated even in the disclosure statement that the petitioner ever gave money to them for commission of the crime. Petitioner at no point of time was physically involved with the alleged offence. Petitioner would not be in the knowledge as to what the other accused would be planning and no conversation whatsoever between the petitioner and Manjeet was recorded by the prosecution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the allegations of the prosecution are only of motive which is not sufficient to frame a charge for conspiracy of the murder. It is further stated that even if the petitioner had knowledge of the offence to be committed, unless petitioner participates therein or commits any overt act, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the offence committed. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as R Venkatakrishnan Vs. CBI , 2010 AIR(SC) 1812; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors , 2019 AIR(SC) 3363. and of this Court reported as State NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors,. Thus, the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a case of no evidence except the evidence of motive against the petitioner, therefore the petitioner be discharged and the impugned order be set aside.