Physical absence does not warrant quashing where conspiracy is prima facie indicated and investigation remains pending.

The applicant sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11191006260162/2026, registered at Bodakdev Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 189(1), 189(2), 191(1), 191(2), 324(4), 303(2), 331(4), 61(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that approximately 15–20 female bouncers and several men, allegedly acting at the instance of the applicant and another accused, forcibly entered the complainant’s plot, damaged fencing, CCTV cameras and an electricity meter, stole a DVR, and assaulted security guards with sticks.

The applicant argued that he was not alleged to be present at the place of occurrence, that CCTV footage showed his absence, and that the allegation of conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS was vague and unsupported.

The complainant and the State opposed quashing, relying on an earlier FIR dated 6 June 2026 concerning an alleged attempt to enter the same property, the applicant’s alleged connection with the persons present at the scene, and call-detail records indicating communication and location proximity.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, but declined to terminate an investigation where the allegations and surrounding circumstances disclosed a prima facie possibility of the applicant’s involvement.

Section 61(2) BNS, corresponding to the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, does not necessarily require proof of a formal or express agreement; an implied agreement or common design may be inferred from circumstantial material, though such inference must ultimately be established through evidence.

The Court distinguished Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal, where unimpeachable material showing absence from the incident was considered in a case not involving conspiracy, and Mohammad Bilal Ghulam Rasul Kagazi v. State of Gujarat, where mere telephone contact, in the specific advocate-client circumstances, was insufficient to establish conspiracy.

The Court also relied on the principle that whether conspiracy existed was a matter requiring investigation and, potentially, trial.

Although the applicant’s presence was not mentioned in the FIR or subsequent reports, the Court held that physical presence was not indispensable to an allegation of conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS.

The earlier FIR against the applicant concerning the same disputed property, followed approximately 18 days later by the alleged forcible entry and violence by persons allegedly connected with him, constituted circumstances that could not be disregarded at the threshold.

The alleged call-detail records showing that the applicant was in contact with persons present at the scene further required investigation and could not be conclusively rejected at the quashing stage.

The Court therefore found that the applicant’s alleged absence and the asserted CCTV material did not conclusively disprove his involvement, particularly when the investigation was incomplete.

The pending land-grabbing complaint was also considered relevant to the applicant’s alleged conduct and modus operandi, though not treated as independently determinative.

The possibility of the applicant’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy could not be excluded merely because he was allegedly absent from the scene, and the relevant circumstances required completion of the investigation.

The application under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly rejected, the Rule was discharged, and the FIR and investigation were permitted to continue.