ORDER : (M.R. MENGDEY, J.) 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11213010240394 of 2024 registered with Dhoraji Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and 201 of the I.P.C. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Brijesh Trivedi appearing for the applicant and learned PP Mr.Hardik Dave for the Respondent – State. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the FIR in the present case came to be registered on 30.7.2024. The incident alleged in the said FIR had taken place on 27.4.2024. For the very same incident, another FIR came to be lodged by the police authorities against the applicant for an offence punishable under the provisions of Prohibition Act. The Co- ordinate Bench of this court had been pleased to enlarge the present applicant on anticipatory bail in the said offence and another FIR for the very same incident came to be registered against the present applicant on 30.7.2024 for an offence punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act. 3.1 The story narrated in the FIR dated 30.7.2024, that is the present FIR is highly improbable. The present FIR has been registered with concocted facts and with an only intention to frame the present applicant as an accused in a serious offence, so that the applicant is not released on bail easily. The reason for registering this FIR against the applicant is animosity between the applicant and the police officer, at whose instance the present FIR has been lodged. 3.2 He further submitted that on the event of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Jayanti celebration, some differences had occurred between the present applicant and the concerned police officer and because of the said differences, the present FIR with concocted facts has been registered against the applicant. 3.3 In the present FIR, it is the case of prosecution that the police authorities had found 150 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate in the premises which was allegedly occupied by the present applicant. These bottles were found on the very day on which the FIR against the applicant for an offence punishable under the provisions of Prohibition Act has been registered. These bottles were found on the very day on which the FIR against the applicant for an offence punishable under the provisions of Prohibition Act has been registered. Therefore, reference in that regard ought to have been made in the said FIR itself. However, instead of doing so, the police authorities have chosen to register a separate FIR for an incident for which one FIR has already been registered. The fact as to why there was no reference at all as regards any bottles of contraband substance having been found in the premises of the present applicant, in the FIR earlier registered, is not explained by the police authorities. 3.4 He further submitted that as per the settled legal position, the second FIR, that is the present FIR, was not maintainable for an incident for which one FIR had already been registered. He further submitted that the premises from which the bottles of contraband substance were found, was not under the occupation of the present applicant and he had already vacated the said premises few days prior to the alleged incident and an affidavit of the land lord of the said premises to the said effect has also been produced on record. He submitted that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the substance which was found from the premises. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence. 3.5 He next submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act has been violated by the investigating agency while carrying out the raid in question. If it was a genuine case on the part of the prosecution, an intimation with regard to secret information could have been sent by the police authorities to the higher officials within a period of 72 hours of the raid had been carried out. The fact that such intimation was readily sent by the police authorities in itself creates a doubt about the genuineness of the facts of the case of prosecution. The FIR itself registered against the present applicant in the present case does not find reference to several important aspects. 3.6 The applicant was ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the FIR registered against the applicant for an offence punishable under the Prohibition Act. The FIR itself registered against the present applicant in the present case does not find reference to several important aspects. 3.6 The applicant was ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the FIR registered against the applicant for an offence punishable under the Prohibition Act. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions. 3.7 Learned advocate for the applicant has relied on following judgments in support of his submission. (i) In the case of Rajender Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2011 LawSuit (SC) 857. (ii) In the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2009 LawSuit (SC) 1676. (iii) In the case of Pankaj Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2022 LawSuit (P&H) 1124. (iv) In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 LawSuit (SC) 685. (v) In the case of Hanumantha; Manjunatha Vs. State of Karnataka; Raj Kumar reported in 2024 LawSuit (Kar) 615. (vi) In the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731. (vii) In the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 233. (viii) In the case of Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab AIR 2018 SC 3853 . 4. The application is opposed by learned PP contending that 150 bottles of contraband substance containing codeine phosphate had been recovered from the premises which was under the occupation of the present applicant. The quantity involved in the present offence is a commercial quantity. He further submitted that after the bottles of contraband substance were seized from the place in question, the same were sent to FSL for examination and it was after the report from the FSL received which indicated that it contained contraband substance of codeine phosphate, the present FIR has been lodged. 4.1 He submitted that it is not correct on part of learned advocate for the applicant to submit that the FIR has been lodged belatedly with concocted facts, however, an entry had been made in the station dairy of the concerned police station about the bottles of contraband substance having been found from the place on the very day on which they were found. He submitted that the applicant is a headstrong person in the area and there are several other antecedents against the present applicant. 4.2 He submitted that the investigation carried out so far indicates that the applicant used to regularly receive the bottles of contraband substance, which were dispatched in the name of one Bhikhabhai and it was the applicant who used to fetch the bottles of contraband substance from the office of courier agent. He lastly submitted that having regard to the facts of the case and the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application. 5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. 5.1 On 27.4.2024, the police authorities had raided the premises which was under the occupation of the present applicant as the police authorities had received an information that the applicant was carrying out the activity of manufacturing of spurious liquor in the said premises. During the raid after having found the material used for the purpose of manufacture of liquor, an offence punishable under the provisions of Prohibition Act came to be registered against the present applicant. During the very raid, 150 bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate were also found lying in the said premises. Those bottles were seized by the police authorities and a necessary entry in that regard was made in the station dairy of the concerned police station. The sample bottles were sent for FSL examination. The report of the FSL indicated that the contraband substance consisted of codeine phosphate and upon the receipt of the said report from the FSL, the present FIR has been lodged. 5.2 It is sought to be contended by learned advocate on behalf of applicant that since there was no reference at all as regards any bottles of contraband substance having been found from the premises on the date of raid, the present FIR has been lodged with concocted facts, does not appear to be acceptable at this stage, because as stated herein above, on the very day, when these bottles were found in the premises, an entry in that regard had been made in the station dairy of the concerned police station. Therefore it is required to be accepted at this stage that 150 bottles of cough syrup were found from the place on that day. 5.3 It is sought to be contended by learned advocate on behalf of applicant that the premises in question was not under the occupation of the applicant at the relevant time and an affidavit in that regard of the land lord has also been produced by the applicant on record. Learned PP has drawn the attention of this court to the statement of one Mohammad Uvesh Mohammad Ikbal Parkhaniya recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has categorically stated that he was threatened by the applicant to affirm the said affidavit and therefore he had affirmed the said affidavit. The statement further indicates that the premised in question was very much under the occupation of the present applicant at the relevant time. Therefore, the contention on part of the present applicant that he was not in occupation of the said premises at the relevant time, does not appear to be acceptable at this stage. 5.4 Learned PP has also drawn the attention of this court to the statement of another witness namely Paresh Chimanbhai Charwada recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. who is the owner of courier agency namely Mahavir Courier Agency. He in his statement has stated that frequently there were parcels received mentioning the name and mobile number of the recipient and upon receipt of such parcels in their office, the person was contacted through the mobile number mentioned on the parcel and that they came to collect the said parcel from the courier agency. On 12.4.2024, one such parcel was received in the name of Bhikhabhai Patel, there was no address mentioned on the said parcel and only mobile number was mentioned. However, the mobile number which was mentioned in the parcel could not be contacted but one Basidbhai Patel had contacted the courier agency and had inquired about the parcel received in the name of Bhikhabhai, which was replied in affirmative by him. He in his statement further states that several such parcels were received on 16.4.2024, 18.4.2024 and 19.4.2024. He further stated that several persons including the present applicant used to come to his office for receiving the parcels. He in his statement further states that several such parcels were received on 16.4.2024, 18.4.2024 and 19.4.2024. He further stated that several persons including the present applicant used to come to his office for receiving the parcels. He also states that CCTV were installed in his office and he identifies the present applicant from the CCTV footage for having come to fetch such parcels. From the record it appears that these were the parcels containing the bottles of contraband substance. This material indicates that the present applicant had received the parcels of bottles of contraband substance containing codeine phosphate and had stored at the premises from which they were seized. Thus, there appears to be prima facie case against the present applicant for commission of the offence in question. 5.5 It is sought to be contended by learned advocate on behalf of applicant that second FIR with regard to very same incident, for which one FIR was already registered, could not have been registered and was not maintainable. In this regard, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore requires consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.9 of its judgment has observed as under. “9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: 9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. 9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.” 5.5.1 Therefore giving the facts that the earlier offence which was registered against the present applicant was pertaining to Prohibition Act and since the contraband substance defined under the NDPS Act was also found from the premises belonging to the applicant, the second FIR, that is the present FIR was maintainable in view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5.6 It is sought to be contended by learned advocate on behalf of applicant that mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have been violated by the investigating agency. The material available on record prima facie indicates that there was no violation at all of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act. However, this aspect requires appreciation of evidence at the stage of trial and therefore this argument is not admissible at the stage of anticipatory bail. 5.7 Lastly, the conduct on part of the applicant is also required to be seen. The record indicates that there are several antecedents registered against the applicant for commission of serious offences, which is suggestive of the fact that the applicant is a headstrong person of the area. As discussed herein above, the present applicant had forced the owner of the premises in question to affirm the affidavit as dictated by him, this conduct on part of the applicant shows that the applicant has a tendency of pressurizing the witnesses. 5.8 Learned advocate for the applicant has also sought to rely upon several other affidavits affirmed by several other witnesses which have been filed to indicate that they were pressurized by the police authorities to give their statements in a particular manner. Per contra, learned PP has also drawn the attention of this court to the fact that the persons who have filed such affidavits are none else but the close-aides of the present applicant himself. 6. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 19.9.2024 in the case of Anarul S.K Vs. The State of West Bengal has expressed its view that the court should be slow in entertaining the applications for anticipatory bail in the offence pertaining to NDPS Act. 7. Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The present Application is dismissed.