JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Asif Kalim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Lal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Chakiya PS Case No. 314 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was party to looting from Chakiya branch of Bandhan Bank of Rs.10,94,094/-. The petitioner is said to have been identified by the spy from the CCTV footage. 5. The matter was heard on 29.04.2021 and adjourned when learned counsel for the petitioner had taken a stand that the source of identification was not disclosed and on query of the Court that whether he was prepared to submit himself for being compared with the CCTV footage, he had asked for a day’s adjournment for taking instructions. 6. In view of such stand of learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.04.2021, on 30.04.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he was ready to appear before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari and the CCTV footage of the incident be compared with the miscreants, who have been seen in the said CCTV footage. 7. The Court accepting such request, had directed for an exercise to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari on 6th May, 2021 at 11:00 AM in his official Chamber and had also given interim protection till his appearance before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari and thereafter, if he was not identified he was directed to be allowed to go whereas if he was identified in the CCTV footage, he would be taken into custody. 8. Learned APP submitted that he has sent the report of the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari dated 08.05.2021. Perusal of the same discloses that all arrangements were made by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari for completing the exercise and despite the team waiting for the whole day, the petitioner had not turned up. 9. 8. Learned APP submitted that he has sent the report of the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari dated 08.05.2021. Perusal of the same discloses that all arrangements were made by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari for completing the exercise and despite the team waiting for the whole day, the petitioner had not turned up. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that he had taken the stand before the Court after taking specific instructions from the petitioner and him not appearing before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari on the date fixed by the Court, he was also surprised at such conduct and could not defend the same. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the CCTV footage annexed, the spy who had identified has not been named, since the FIR was against unknown persons, but the CCTV was not examined and there was no identification by the local people and only by the spy. It was further submitted that no CCTV footage is annexed in the case diary. 11. Learned APP submitted that there is no question of putting any CCTV footage in the case diary because it is in digital form and only in support of materials collected by the police during investigation, the same are required to be submitted to the Court. It was submitted that the moot question is that the petitioner has been identified as one of the persons who had committed the crime and it is immaterial as to who identified, as the face of the petitioner in the CCTV can always be matched with the actual face of the petitioner and if both tally, it is not relevant as to who had identified because facts speaks of themselves and under the Evidence Act also, facts and circumstances which speaks for themselves need not be proved. 12. In the present case, it was submitted that the petitioner himself having agreed to appear for being compared with the CCTV footage, that too, after a day’s indulgence being given to learned counsel for the petitioner to seek specific instructions whether he was agreeable to that and then not appearing, also is a clear indication that the petitioner knows that he was the person in the CCTV and would be easily identified. It was submitted that had he not been present, there was no reason for him not to appear as the Court had already granted him protection that if he is not identified, he would be allowed to go. 13. At this juncture, the Court again called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to take a stand as to why, when on specific instructions after adjournment, he had agreed to participate in the exercise but had not done so, learned counsel said that he had no explanation and would also not approve of such conduct when he had taken a stand before the Court only after seeing specific instructions from the petitioner. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 16. Interim protection given to the petitioner under order dated 30.04.2021, stands withdrawn.