Order 30

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 3 SC 495/2023
STATE Vs. MOHAN GUPTA
FIR NO. 54/2023
PS: Crime Branch-Central Delhi
13.05.2026
Present: Sh. K.P. Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Accused Pradeep in person along with ld. Counsel
Mohd. Haider and ld. Counsel Sh. Hasim Alam
(through VC).
Accused Mohan Gupta produced from JC.
Sh. Raghav Chawla, ld. Proxy Counsel for accused
Mohan Gupta on behalf of Ms Shivani Sharma.
IO/SI Vikasdeep in person.
Matter is fixed for consideration on point of charge
qua the accused persons.
On the late date of hearing, on behalf of accused
Pradeep, it was argued that except the disclosure statement and
CDR records, there is nothing on record to suggest the complicity
of accused Pardeep in the crime in question. It was submitted that
in the supplementary charge-sheet containing the FSL result, it
has been categorically mentioned that despite best efforts no data
could be retrieved from the mobile phones and the SIM Cards of
the accused persons.
On the basis of the same, it was argued on behalf of
accused Pradeep that the material on record, does not raise grave
suspicion of involvement of accused Pradeep in the crime in
question, as alleged by the prosecution and it was argued that
consequently, the accused Pradeep ought to be discharged from
the present case.
Matter was kept for today for advancing arguments
on behalf of State in light of the submission advanced on behalf
of accused persons.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
During the course of submissions, it has been
admitted by the IO that apart from the disclosure statement of the
co-accused namely Mohan Gupta, at the instance of which, the
accused Pradeep was apprehended, there are only call records,
which suggest that the accused Mohan Gupta and accused
Pradeep were in touch with each other. Apart from the same,
there is nothing on record, which has been placed to show the
complicity of accused Pradeep in the crime in question. It has
also been admitted that despite efforts, no financial trail could be
established between both the accused persons.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State, submits that in light of
the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in matter
titled as Santokh Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev.P.
691/2009, dated 05.08.2011, mere existence of CDR showing the
accused persons to be in touch with each other, is in itself
sufficient to frame charges as the said fact raises grave suspicion.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused
Pradeep has placed reliance on judgment titled as Shyam Gupta
& Ors vs State, (NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev.P. 421/2019, dated
13.03.2023 and Kunwar Pal vs State, (NCT of Delhi), Crl. M.C
6586/2023 dated 22.02.2024 in support of the submissions made
by him, for discharge of accused Pradeep.
To come up for orders on point of charge on
16.05.2026.
(Puneet Nagpal)
Special Judge, NDPS,
Central,THC, Delhi/13.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --