Anticipatory bail may be denied if custodial interrogation is essential to investigate serious socio-economic offences, particularly when the accused is an absconder or a supplier in a prohibition state, as societal interest outweighs individual liberty in such circumstances.

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.11823004260014 OF 2026 registered with Dediyapada Police Station, Dist. Narmada, for the offence under the provisions of the Prohibition Act.

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 named in FIR, it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant's vehicle was used or that the muddamal was found from the present applicant and there is no direct or indirect involvement of the present applicant in the alleged crime. Moreover, there is no recovery or discovery from the petitioner and there is no prima facie case leveled against the present petitioner as the petitioner was not present at the time and place of the raid. It is also argued that the petitioner does not know the muddamal vehicle and that the petitioner is doing labour work and maintaining his family. Moreover, in the present case, nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant Muddamal is also recovered. However, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, the present application deserves consideration.

4) The learned APP has mainly argued that the applicant is very much involved in the offence. After the present FIR, there is another FIR filed with Dediapada Police Station, C-Part being Criminal Case No.118230042600180/2026 under Sections 65(a) (e), 81, 98(2) and 116(b) Prohibition Act, and in the said offence also, the present applicant is absconding. Therefore, the present applicant is involved in the said offence and therefore, the application is required to be rejected. 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. Perusing the investigation papers, it appears that the applicant is a supplier and has supplied the liquor to the accused to be supplied in the State of Gujarat, though he was very well aware that Gujarat is a dry state and law of prohibition does exist. Further after the present FIR, there is also another FIR which has been filed. Though the name of the applicant is not in the FIR, but during investigation, his role is surfaced and during the course of investigation, the name of the present applicant is stated to have supplied the liquor.

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 be