JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J. 1. This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the applicant in relation to F.I.R. no 07/2023 of Police Station Gajsinghpur District Sriganganagar, registered for the offence punishable under sections(s) 8/21, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the application are that on 15.01.2023, a consignment of heroin/smack was to come to India from Pakistan through a drone on the international border area. Co-accused Jitendra and Manpreet, who came to take delivery, were caught on the spot by a BSF officials posted in the area. After detaining these two, a consignment of drug arrived from a drone coming from Pakistan, which both of them received. Both these persons and the drug were presented before the SHO of Gajsinghpur, who undertook further proceedings. The quantity of the heroin was 6.063 Kgs. 3. Learned counsel representing the applicant vehemently urged that charge-sheet against co-accused namely Jitendra and Manpreet has already been filed. The applicant has been implicated in this case solely based on information provided by the coaccused Jintendra and Manpreet, which is not admissible in evidence and has no legal value. According to him, the incident could not have occurred as described because it was not possible for the applicant to run away in front of a team of armed BSF officers, nor did the applicant come to take delivery of the consignment from said Jitendra and Manpreet. 4. It is further argued that applicant is innocent person and present FIR filed against the applicant is false and baseless; that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in a false case; that there is no record to show as to how ingredient of drug peddling is made out against him; that his custodial interrogation is not required; that there are no allegations of applicant tampering with the evidence and nothing is to be recovered from applicant. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour. Reliance was placed on the following judgments by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments: (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 (SC) Mohammed Khalid and Another Vs. State of Telangana Decided on 01.03.2024 (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1651 of 2023 (SC) Mangilal Vs. Reliance was placed on the following judgments by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments: (i) Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 (SC) Mohammed Khalid and Another Vs. State of Telangana Decided on 01.03.2024 (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1651 of 2023 (SC) Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Decided on 12.07.2023 (iii) Criminal Appeal No. 3191 of 2023 (SC) Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State Decided on 13.10.2023 (iv) S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 11677/2023 Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan Decided on 29.04.2024 (v) S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12610/2023 Ramnaresh Vs. State of Rajasthan Decided on 07.12.2023 (vi) S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 9625/2023 Amzad Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan Decided on 27.05.2024 (vii) S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 930/2023 Ganpat Vs. State of Rajasthan Decided on 02.03.2023 5. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that on the basis of material collected so far the investigation officer have reason to believe that applicant is involved in international smuggling of a large consignment of contraband drug. There are serious allegations against the applicant. Highlighting the non-cooperation in investigation by applicant, learned PP has vehemently submitted that in the absence of custodial interrogation of applicant, investigation in this case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion and in view of nature of gravity of offence, custodial interrogation of applicant is essential. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that anticipatory bail application be dismissed. 6. I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the material available on record. 7. Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152 after analyzing the entire law has observed as under: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence. (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence. (c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (d) The possibility of the likelihood of accused to repeat similar or other offences. (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern. (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail. 8. Applying the afore-noted dictum to the instant case and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the Case-diary as well as material on record, it appears prima facie that he is habitual offender of offences under NDPS Act. The delivery of contraband drug from Pakistan was ensured by the applicant himself; consignment was intended to be delivered to him and had arrived in India on his instructions. The arguments of learned counsel for the applicant are based on mere imagination. The applicant has been a part of an international drug smuggling racket. The delivery of contraband drug from Pakistan was ensured by the applicant himself; consignment was intended to be delivered to him and had arrived in India on his instructions. The arguments of learned counsel for the applicant are based on mere imagination. The applicant has been a part of an international drug smuggling racket. The role of the applicant, as revealed in the investigation, clearly satisfies the ingredients of the offence under the NDPS Act. It is observed that the applicant herein is involved in a serious crime. The investigation is still in process and the applicant herein is evading arrest by not joining the investigation. Thus, the chance of the applicant escaping the procedure of law, tampering with the evidence exists. 9. In my view, since the case is at the threshold qua the applicant, it will be practically scuttling the investigation qua applicant in case the anticipatory bail is granted to him which will create hurdles in arriving at the truth. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant do not substantiate the case of the applicant because the principles enunciated therein are not in the context of anticipatory bail of accused. 10. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the case set up against applicant in its entirety, the allegations leveled against the applicant this Court is of prima facie opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. The court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11. Resultantly, instant application for anticipatory bail is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Whatever discussed or observed hereinabove is only a prima facie view and shall not tantamount to any opinion on the merits of the case.