Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, showing for Upadhyay, mentioned that the FIR was lodged on “fictitious” grounds.
“He did your complete expose of Ayodhya, My Lord. Earlier additionally, he has finished so many investigations. For each investigation, there’s some FIR on some fictitious purpose. I don’t want another reduction apart from a good investigation,” Rai argued.
“Suppose you hit a scooterist along with your automobile,and then you definately get out of your automobile and provides casteist abuses. Then, sure, it’s an offence and it must be seen. Allow us to hypothetically say, it might occur in numerous methods. If it’s a utterly imaginary and concocted story, then it’s a completely different case,” CJI Kant mentioned.
“Nothing of this kind occurred. That is why we’re asking for the CCTV footage, My Lord. For that, you want some respiratory time and area with the intention to make out the case correctly. They need to give us the copy of the FIR and CCTV footage additionally…If they supply these two issues, I can,” Rai responded.
