Chhattisgarh High Court
CRMP/2498/2026 of NIKHIL CHANDRAKAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 23 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2498 of 2026 Nikhil Chandrakar S/o Laxman Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o F-15, Avanti Vihar, Sector 02, Khamhardih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station
CGHC010374382026
2026:CGHC:41588
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2498 of 2026
Nikhil Chandrakar S/o Laxman Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o F-15, Avanti Vihar, Sector 02, Khamhardih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Khamhardih, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner For State/respondent :
:
Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate.
Ms. Avleen Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD
24/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the legality and sustainability of the order dated 27.07.2026 passed in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 2026, whereby the revisional Court upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 25.05.2026 and dismissed the revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 207 of the
Cr.P.C., praying for supply of the CCTV footage. However, without considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the said prayer was not granted and the CCTV footage was not supplied to the petitioner and on the same day right of cross- examination was closed. He further submits that the petitioner preferred a revision, which was partly allowed; however, the CCTV footage was again not supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is deprived with the right of the accused, as provided under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the CCTV footage sought by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. is forming part of the charge- sheet filed by the police and was available on the Court record. The learned Trial Court, while considering the application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., recorded this fact and permitted the petitioner to peruse the CCTV footage in the Court itself. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The order passed by the learned revisional Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although permission was granted to the petitioner to peruse the CCTV footage in the Court itself, however on the same date, right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness was closed and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his right to cross-examine the prosecution witness.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
6. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 25.05.2026 would show that the Trial Court granted permission to the petitioner to peruse the CCTV footage available in the pen drive. Further, by the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court, while upholding the order of the learned Trial Court dated 25.05.2026 permitting the petitioner to peruse the CCTV footage in the Court itself, also considered the fact that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness had been closed and granted the said relief, thereby partly allowed the revision and granted last opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court.
8. The CRMP, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge vaibhav