VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR No. 350/2016 has been concocted and based on fabricated facts, continuance of proceedings on basis of such FIR will be an abuse of process of Court. The footage available in CCTV cameras installed on the outer walls of house of Harshita and outer walls of neighbouring Bank reveals that at about 6.00 am Harshita was taken away by Police. On the contrary, as per FIR, secret information about transporting some contraband was received by Police at 6.40 am and it has been stated that Harshita and Rajat Mourya were intercepted at about 7.50 am and on search the contraband narcotic substance 'Charas' was found in their possession.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in view of allegations against police officials the matter should not be allowed to be investigated by present IO. It should be entrusted for investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In support he has cited 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 202 Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Ors. . And 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 221 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors .
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that there is nothing on record to substantiate the issues raised by the petitioner.;