The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in NDPS cases requires careful consideration due to the serious nature of the offences, and a second FIR can be maintainable if it pertains to different offences.

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. 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