Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Con- stitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27/3/1997 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govern- ment of India, under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that on 23/12/1996 the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short d. R. I. ) intercepted a Maruti Car, bearing registra- tion No. DL-4cb-4104, near Delhi Police check post at Sindhu Border after it had entered Delhi. The car was being driven by the petitioner. Besides the petitioner there was another occupant of the car Mr. Jagdeep Singh, who was found sitting next to the petitioner. Search of the car by the officials of the D. R. I. led to recovery of 4 kgs. and 800 grams of heroine.

( 3 ) THE statement of the petitioner under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was recorded on 24/12/1996. Subsequently, on the same day the petitioner was produced before the A. C. M. M. , New Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody. On 27/3/1997, while the petitioner was in judicial custody facing trial in connection with the recovery of the above said contraband, the impugned order of detention was passed against him. The petitioner being aggrieved of the detention order has chal- lenged the same.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, though having raised several grounds of challenge in the writ petition, has laid emphasis on one point. He submits that since the petitioner was in custody there was no necessity to pass the detention order as there was no likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order was fully alive to the fact that the peti- tioner was in custody but at the same time it was satisfied that there was compelling necessity to direct the detention of the petitioner under section 3 (1) of the Act in view of the following factors:

(1) there was a likelihood of the petitioner moving an application for bail;

(2) there was a likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail; and

(3) there was a likelihood of the petitioner indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs after his release.

( 5 ) WE have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner in jail reveal the rea- sons which prevailed with the detaining authority for passing the order of detention despite the petitioner being in judi- cial custody. The relevant portion of the detention order reads as follows :-

" Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- stances Act, 1985 have been initiated against Shri Gurminder Singh @ Lalli, I am satisfied that there is compelling necessity in view of the likelihood of his moving application for bail and being granted bail and being granted bail and the likelihood of his indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as is evident from the trend of his activities, to detain him under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, although he has not moved any bail application so far. "

( 6 ) FROM the above it is apparent that the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was in custody, but it failed to point out any material on the basis of which it was led to believe that there was a likeli- hood of the bail being granted to the petitioner. The infer- ence of the detaining authority does not seem to be grounded on any cogent material. It is important to note that the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under sec- tions 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- stances Act. It is also clear from the reading of the grounds of detention that the D. R. I. claims to have seize

Click Here to Read the rest of this document