Statement of co-accused provides sufficient grounds for investigation and cannot be quashed at preliminary stage.

An FIR (CR. No. 11206020251056 of 2025) was lodged on 15.11.2025 at Kadi Police Station, Mahesana, by a Police Constable of the State Monitoring Cell, Gandhinagar, for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act and Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 238 of the BNS, 2023.

Acting on secret information that illicit liquor would be transported via the Shedrana Kadi Highway in a trailer (RJ-07-GC-1081), the police intercepted the trailer; its pilot Creta car and escort Fortuner car fled, though the Fortuner was later found parked 4 km away.

The trailer contained 18,651 bottles/tins of IMFL valued at Rs. 1,38,06,810/-.

The applicant was not named in the FIR; his name surfaced during investigation through statements of the co-accused driver and his own brother, Navin Virjibhai Luhar, who identified him as the person engaged in the liquor business.

The investigating agency seized a job card dated 25.09.2025 from the Fortuner, collected the corresponding job order from Toyota Infinium Motor Pvt. Ltd. bearing the applicant's name and mobile number as contact person, and recovered a second copy of the job card from the applicant's residence.

From the brother's mobile, videos and photographs allegedly showed the applicant using the Fortuner to transport liquor, along with GPS-status screenshots signed by the applicant, whose insistence led to GPS installation in the seized trailer.

The applicant's anticipatory bail was rejected on 13.01.2026; he remained absconding, leading to a warrant under Section 72 BNSS (16.02.2026) and proclamation under Section 84 BNSS (24.03.2026).

The applicant had five other Prohibition Act offences registered against him between 2020 and 2025.

1. Whether an FIR can be quashed where the applicant, though not named therein, was implicated during investigation on the basis of co-accused statements and corroborative material recovered by the investigating agency.

2. Whether Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (akin to Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872) bars reliance on co-accused statements at the investigation stage such that implication founded thereon renders the FIR liable to be quashed.

3. Whether the High Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR in view of the applicant's abscondence, pending warrants/proclamation, and prior criminal antecedents.

Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (pari materia to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which renders confessional statements to police inadmissible as evidence — but only as a trial-stage determination.

A co-accused's statement may be treated as a clue or piece of information to initiate, direct and conduct investigation, and that an FIR cannot be quashed merely because the applicant is implicated on the basis of such a statement.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482, CrPC: inherent powers, though wide, must be exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases, on sound precedent, and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which enumerates categories (e.g., mala fide/false implication) warranting quashing.

Sections 72 and 84 of BNSS, 2023 (warrant and proclamation) regarding absconding persons.

The Court first noted that although the applicant was not named in the FIR, the investigation had unearthed independent, corroborative material: the Toyota job card recovered from the absconded Fortuner, its duplicate found at the applicant's residence, and the manufacturer's job order recording the applicant's name and mobile number as contact person for that vehicle.

Photographs and videos from the brother's mobile depicted the applicant using the Fortuner to transport liquor, and GPS-status screenshots signed by him linked him to the intercepted trailer.

The evidentiary bar under Section 24, BSA is a question for trial; at the investigation stage, co-accused statements legitimately operate as clues directing inquiry, and their admissibility cannot be pre-judged to terminate investigation.

The Court weighed the applicant's conduct — absconding since rejection of anticipatory bail, with warrants under Section 72 and proclamation under Section 84 BNSS outstanding — and his five antecedent Prohibition Act offences (2020–2025) against any exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analyzing material to determine whether conviction would be sustainable would amount to an impermissible mini-trial in quashing proceedings.

Given the applicant's abscondence, outstanding warrant and proclamation under Sections 72 and 84 BNSS, and his antecedent Prohibition Act offences, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528, BNSS, 2023 would not be exercised.

The application was rejected as devoid of merits and the Rule was discharged.