Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for directing the respondent-authorities to keep and verify the footage of CCTV camera situated at the place of occurrence and wherein the entire occurrence dated 11.2.2020 has been recorded and further for quashing of the order dated 18.5.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that Bhabua P.S. Case no. 94 of 2020 was registered on 11.2.2020 under sections 379, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the statement of the respondent no.6. It was stated by the informant that on 11.2.2020 at 12.30 pm when her husband went out to urinate, the accused Niraj Prasad Gond and his brother Santosh Prasad Gond assaulted her husband as a result of which he fell down injured. On the informant going to her husband’s rescue, she was also assaulted by the accused persons and her gold chain was snatched. Deena Prasad Gond reached there and started to abuse them.

4. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the story as narrated in the FIR by the respondent no.6 is absolutely false and concocted and has been lodged only with the intention to harass the petitioner. It was on 22.1.2020 that the husband of the informant (respondent no.6) came along with police personnel to the house of the petitioners and asked them to vacate the house. On inquiry it transpires that the husband of the informant had obtained a forged sale deed. Thus the petitioner no.1 filed Title Suit no.177 of 2020 in the Court of the learned Sub Judge-I, Kaimur, Bhabua against the informant and others for declaring the sale deed to be void. As a result of the sale deed, the husband of the informant started to torture the petitioner. It is further stated that on 11.2.2020, in a drunken condition the husband of the informant came and started to urinate in front of the house of the petitioner. On the wife of the petitioner no.1 objecting to the same, they were assaulted which led to filing of Bhabua P.S. Case no.95 of 2020 by the petitioner no.1. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 requested the SHO, Bhabua and also filed a petition before the Director General of Police, Bihar praying therein that in connection with Bhabua P.S. case no.94 of 2020 subordinate authorities/Investigating Officer be directed to inspect the CCTV footage which would clearly show that no such occurrence as alleged in the FIR lodged by the informant/respondent no.6 had taken place. However the Investigating Officer of the case did not enquire into the matter nor any action or steps were taken by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that after dismissal of the application for anticipatory of the petitioner, because of the Covid-19 pandemic the petitioner could not file an application for bail in the Patna High Court nor could he surrender in the Court below. The husband of the respondent no.6/informant died on 21.2.2020.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the evidence of CCTV footage is a very vital piece of evidence which would clearly bring the truth out in the open and as such the instant application.

6. Learned Senior counsel further referring to sections 66B and 85B of the Indian Evidence Act, in support of his contention has relied on the judgment in the case of Tomaso Bruno and Anr. vs. State of U.P. [2015(2) PLJR 234 (SC)] and more particularly paragraph nos. 25 to 28 thereof.

7. Learned AC to AAG 3 referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 submits that the writ application is not maintainable. Having referred to a number of paragraphs of the case diary, it is submitted that after investigation chargesheet has been submitted finding the case to be true against the two petitioners while coaccused Dina Prasad Gond has been found