A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner-advocate on the allegation that he tried to snatch the pistol of the sub-inspector (respondent) of Mokama Police Station.
However, the petitioner argued that the entire allegations in the FIR are false, concocted and baseless. It was contended that the CCTV footage at the police station will prove that the petitioner was actually a victim in the case and was assaulted by the respondent.
The petitioner further alleged that the respondent ensured that the relevant CCTV footage was deleted and since the CCTV footage is not available, the investigation of the case has been kept pending for more than two years without any progress.
It was further claimed by the petitioner that the then Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) had seen the CCTV footage, wherein it was clear that the respondent had assaulted the petitioner in the premises of the police station.
He further said that though written requests to preserve the CCTV footage were made by him, he was threatened by the then ASP to the extent that if he would indulge in proceeding with the matter, then he would be dealt with otherwise.
In order to pressurise the petitioner, a false case has been instituted by the respondent so that the petitioner would be ready to settle the case, it was claimed.
Source: Barandbench
