Anticipatory bail may be denied if a prima facie case exists, the accused is absconding, or custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth a larger conspiracy, regardless of whether the primary contraband has already been recovered.

ORAL ORDER

1) The present bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195019251407 OF 2025 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, for the offence under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and BNS.

2) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, the applicant has been falsely enroped in the offence. He is not the owner of the muddammal or the applicant has nothing to do with the muddammal. There is nothing to relate the applicant with the alleged crime. However, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, the present application deserves consideration. Further, learned advocate for the applicant has sought parity on the ground that the other co-accused Pradip Devilal Mevada has been granted anticipatory bail by an order dated 5.2.2026 by the coordinate Bench.

4) The learned APP has mainly argued that the applicant is very much involved in the offence. It has been argued that though the applicant is aware that there is a prohibition of liquor in Gujarat, he has supplied the same to be sold in Gujarat state and if the applicant is released, then possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant shall indulge in such type of illegal activities and therefore, his custodial interrogation is required to curled out the truth as to who are the others to whom he had supplied in Gujarat therefore, the present application does not deserve any consideration.

5) Moreover, the name of the applicant has been stated on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, but at the time of investigation, statement of co-accused provides clues to the investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence against the person who has been named as accused. In view of the said fact, there is no bar on considering the statement of the co-accused for investigation purpose, irrespective of the fact that the statement of the co-accused to police is not admissible in evidence before the Court, but police can certainly consider that statement as a clue while interrogating him further or other person arrested or interrogated during the course of investigation, as the said confession of co-accused gives a clue to the Investigating Authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, the statement of the co-accused provides a clue for investigation and to unearth the truth, the statement of co-accused is required.

6) Considering the facts of the present case, looking at the material placed before on record, it appears that the role of the present applicant has been of piloting the vehicle and the name of the present applicant has been stated by co-accused Yuvrajsinh Jayendrasinh Dabhi, Considering the investigation papers, it also transpires that in the investigation, it has been found that from the call record, the location of the applicant is shown first at Mandar, Rajasthan, thereafter, Gundri check post, Panthavada, Banaskantha, Gujarat and thereafter, Kuchavada, Ta.Deesa, Banaskantha and the pla