1 2025:CGHC:51111-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 520 of 2025 Bhojraj Patel S/o Shankar Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Loharsingh, Police Station - Jharband, District - Bargarh (Odisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey,Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.15 10:45:00 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 59/2024, dismissing the petitioner's applications under Sections 94 and 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction commanding the respondent/Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali to preserve and produce the CCTV footage from Police Station Saraipali for the period 16.07.2024 (1:00 a.m. to 4:05 p.m.), duly certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, before the learned learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for examination in Special Criminal Case No. 59/2024. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction commanding the learned Trial Court to supply to the petitioner a certified copy of the pen drive enclosed with the final report/charge sheet dated 22.08.2024 along with all annexed electronic/documentary evidence, as mandated under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allegedly involved in a road rage incident on 15/07/2024 with a 3 person claiming himself to be a police constable posted at police station Saraipali. The said incident led to his forcible detention at police station from approximately 01:00 AM on 16/07/2024 where the petitioner was assaulted and falsely implicated in an NDPS case bearing Crime No. 197/2024 involving seizure of 50.200 Ganja. To prove his case, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for production/ preservation of CCTV footage of the police station as per the directives of the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court by the order impugned dated 14/08/2025, thus this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has filed the application for production of CCTV footage on 16/07/2024 (01:00 AM to 04:05 PM). He further submits that though the respondent prosecuting agency is having the possession of requisite CCTV footage, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 94 of BNSS before the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court rejected the application as the same was not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner. He would submit that the provisions of Section 94 of the BNSS empowers a court or a police station's officer in charge to issue a written order for the production of any document or "thing" that is deemed necessary for an investigation, inquiry, or trial. This includes electronic communications and devices containing digital evidence. The order specifies the time and place of production, and the recipient can comply by producing the item themselves or sending an authorized 4 representative. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the party and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the State that they are having the possession of requisite CCTV footage, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to move the suitable/ appropriate application before the concerned trial Court in this regard and if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar