So for comparison context first consider the following line of the Chekhover variation of the sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6
5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Bg5 e6
9. O-O-O Be7 10. Rhe1 O-O 11. Kb1 (avoiding for example 11. Qd3 d5 12. e5 Ne4
13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. Qe3 Bxg5 15. Nxg5 Qa5 hitting a2 and e5) Rc8 12. Qd3 a6
13. Nd4 Qc7 14. f4

Now what if white plays like a delayed Moscow variation with Bb5+, a hypothetical line could for example be
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Bb5+ Nbd7 6. Nc3 a6 (but maybe better is ignoring the bishop with 6..e6 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Qd2 O-O
9. O-O-O Nc5 leaving the bishop on b5 hitting nothing and e4 weak unlike in the Chekhover) 7. Bxd7+ Bxd7 8. Bg5 e6
9. Qd2 Be7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. Rhe1 Rc8 12. f4

Is there anything on this line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Bb5+ I could not really find anything. On the one hand it seems kind of annoying because it dodges 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nc6 but playing 6..e6 instead of 6..a6 looks good I think? And why is this line not well known compared to Chekhover?