http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: DHARMENDRA  SUGANCHAND  CHELAWAT &  SUGANCHAND  KANHAIYYALAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/02/1990

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1196            1990 SCR  (1) 303  1990 SCC  (1) 746        JT 1990 (1)   184  1990 SCALE  (1)146  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1990 SC1202  (11,12)  R          1990 SC1763  (5)  RF         1991 SC1640  (11,12)  C          1991 SC2261  (4,12)

ACT:     Prevention  of  Illicit Traffic in  Narcotic  Drugs  and Psychotropic  Substances Act, 1988: Section  3(1)--Detention Order--Detenu in jail when orderpassed--Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants  were arrested for  offences  punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and  Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. They were remanded to judicial custody till  October  13,  1988. On October 11,  1988  orders  were passed  under  Section  3(1) of the  Prevention  of  illicit Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances  Act, 1988 for the detention of the appellants on the ground  that with  a view to preventing the appellants from  engaging  in the transportation and abetting in the export inter-state of Psychotropic Substances, it was necessary to detain them and to keep in custody. The orders were served on them on  Octo- ber 13, 1988, while in custody. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions filed on behalf of the appellants,  challeng- ing the legality of their detention.     In  the Special Leave Petitions filed in this Court,  it was  contended that since the appellants were in custody  on October  11,  1988,  the date of passing  of  the  detention order,  there was no apprehension that the appellants  would be  engaging in any prejudicial activity, and the  detention order could not be validly passed.     On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that  the detention order was validly passed on October 11, 1988 since the  appellants had been remanded to judicial  custody  upto October  13,  1988 only, and the detaining  authority  could have apprehended that the remand may not be extended  beyond that  date and the appellants may be released from  custody, and would be free thereafter to engage in prejudicial activ- ities.     Allowing  the  appeals, this Court passed  an  order  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

January  11,  1990, setting aside the  detention  order  and directing the release of the appellants. 304 Giving reasons for its order, this Court,     HELD:  An  order  for detention can  be  validly  passed against  a  person  in custody and for that  purpose  it  is necessary  that the grounds of detention must show that  (i) the  detaining  authority  was aware of the  fact  that  the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were  compel- ling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression  "compel- ling  reasons" in the context of making an order for  deten- tion of a person already in custody implied that there  must be  cogent  material before the detaining authority  on  the basis  of which it may be satisfied that (a) the  detenu  is likely  to be released from custody in the near  future  and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activi- ties of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from  engag- ing in such activities. [313C-E]     Rameshwar  Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan &  Anr., [1964]  4  SCR 921; Masood Alam Etc. v. Union of  India  and Others, [1973] 1 SCC 551; Dulal Roy v. District  Magistrate, Burdwan,  [1975] 1 SCC 837; Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu  & Kashmir and Others, [1982] 2 SCC 43; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate  Dhanbad  and Others, [1983] 4  SCC  301;  Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Others, [1985] 4  SCC 232; Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra & Others, [1986] 4 SCC 378; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate Dhanbad, Bihar and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 416; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v.  State of U. P. & Others, [1988] 1 SCC 436; Vijay Kumar v. Union of India,  [1988] 2 SCC 57 and N. Meera Rani v.  Government  of Tamil Nadu & Another, [1989] 4 SCC 418, referred to.     In  the instant case, the detaining authority was  aware of the fact that the appellants were in custody on the  date of  the passing of the order of detention. Though  the  fact that  the appellants have been remanded to judicial  custody till  October  13, 1988 has been mentioned, the  grounds  of detention  do not show that the detaining  authority  appre- hended  that  further  remand would not be  granted  by  the Magistrate  on October 13, 1988 and the appellants would  be released from custody on October 13, 1988. Nor is there  any material  in the grounds, which may lend support to such  an apprehension. On the other hand, the bail applications moved by the appellants had been rejected by the Sessions Judge  a few days prior to the passing of detention order on  October 11,  1988.  The grounds disclose that  the  appellants  were engaged  in  activities which are offences  punishable  with imprisonment under the 305 provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,  1988. It cannot, therefore, be said that there  was  a reasonable  prospect  of the appellants  not  being  further remanded  to  custody on October 13, 1988  and  their  being released from custody at the time when the order for preven- tive detention was passed on October 11, 1988. [313F;  314C- E]     In  such circumstances, the order for detention  of  the appellants cannot be sustained. [314F]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

& 12 of 1990.     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1989 of the  Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ No. 591 & 591-A of 1988.     Harjinder Singh, R.N. Joshi and Latha Krishnamurthy  for the Appellants.     Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, P. Parameswaran,  B. Parthasarthy,  N.N.  Johari and Uma Nath Singh for  the  Re- spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     S.C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals, by special leave,  arise out  of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi whereby  the writ  petitions filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution to  challenge the legality of the orders dated  October  11, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of  Illicit Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances  Act, 1988  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) for the  deten- tion  of the appellants have been dismissed. This  Court  by the  order  dated January 11, 1990 allowed the  appeals  and after  setting aside the orders of detention  dated  October 11,  1988  directed that the appellants be  set  at  liberty forthwith  and that reasoned judgment would follow.  We  are hereby indicating our reasons for the order passed on  Janu- ary 11, 1990.     Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat (the Appellant in  Crimi- nal Appeal No. 11/90) here in after referred to as ’Dharmen- dra’  is  the son of Suganchand Kanhaiyyalal  Chelawat  (the Appellant  in  Criminal Appeal No. 12 of  1990)  hereinafter referred  to  as ’Suganchand’. In the grounds  of  detention furnished  to the appellants it is stated that on  September 21, 1988 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelli- gence,  Bombay Zonal Unit, searched the godown of  Siddharth Trot- 306 ters Pvt. Ltd., Kothari Mansion, at 357, S.V.P. Road, Bombay and  five  card  board cartons containing  in  all  2,51,000 mandrax   tablets   weighing  125.5  Kgs.  and   valued   at Rs.7,53,000  were  seized from there. During  the  follow-up investigation  the officers of the Central Excise &  Customs searched  the premises of Suganchand at Indore (M.P.)  which resulted in the recovery of 51 Kgs. of mandrax tablets  from a  Maruti  Van  parked in the house  compound  on  September 22/23, 1988 which was seized. In addition to 20. 500 Kgs. of mandrax  tablets,  148.300 Kgs. of methaqualone  powder  and 97.700 Kgs. of white powder was recovered from the residence itself.  Suganchand in his statement which was  recorded  on September  23, 1988 stated that he had manufactured  mandrax tablets at his factory at Indore and that he was assisted by his  son, Dharmendra. Suganchand was arrested  on  September 23,  1988 and produced before the Additional Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Indore on September 24, 1988 who remanded him to the police custody till September 30, 1988. On September 30, 1988 Suganchand was remanded to judicial custody till  Octo- ber 13, 1988. A bail application was submitted by Suganchand in the Sessions Court on September 28, 1988 and the same was rejected by the Sessions Court on October 1, 1988.     Dharmendra  was arrested on October 4, 1988 and  he  was remanded  to  the police custody upto October  5,  1988.  On October  5,  1988 he was remanded to judicial  custody  till October  13, 1988. During the course of arguments Shri  Har- jinder Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, stated that a bail application was submitted on behalf of  Dharmen- dra and the same was rejected on October 5, 1988.     On  October  11, 1988 orders were passed  by  Shri  K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India,  Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, under Section 3(1) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Act  for  the detention of the appellants. In the  order  of detention  the  detaining authority has stated that  he  was satisfied  from the record of the case with respect  to  the appellants that with a view to preventing them from engaging in the transportation and abetting in the export inter-state of Psychotropic Substances it is necessary to make the order directing that the appellants be detained and kept in custo- dy. The said order of detention was served on appellants  on October 13, 1988 while they were in custody. The  appellants were also served with the grounds of detention dated October 11,  1988  as well as the documents on  which  reliance  was placed by the detaining authority. Writ  Petitions  under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of India 307 were  filed  by  Kumari Archana Chelawat,  the  daughter  of Suganchand and sister of Dharmendra, wherein the legality of the  detention of the appellants was challenged  before  the Delhi  High  Court. The said writ petitions have  been  dis- missed  by the High Court by order dated September 7,  1989. Thereafter the appellants moved this Court for special leave to  appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court  and special  leave  to appeal was granted on January  11,  1990. Hence these appeals.     Shri Harjinder Singh, the learned counsel for the appel- lants has urged that since the appellants were in custody on October 11, 1988, the date of passing of the impugned  order of detention, there was no apprehension that the  appellants would be engaging in any prejudicial activity and the  order for  detention of the appellants under Section 3(1)  of  the Act could not be validly passed. In support of the aforesaid submission  Shri Harjinder Singh has placed reliance on  the decision  of this Court in Ramesh Yadav  v. District  Magis- trate, Etah and Others, [1985] 4 SCC 232; Suraj Pal Sahu  v. State of Maharashtra & Others, [1986] 4 SCC 378 and N. Meera Rani  v.  Government of Tamil Nadu & Another, [1989]  4  SCC 418.     The  learned  Attorney General, on the other  hand,  has supported  the decision of the High Court and has  submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the present cases the  orders  for detention of the  appellants  were  validly passed  on October 11, 1988. The submission of  the  learned Attorney General is that the appellants had been remanded to judicial custody upto October 13, 1988 only and the  detain- ing  authority could have apprehended that the  said  remand may  not be extended beyond October 13, 1988 and the  appel- lants  may be released from custody on October 13, 1988  and thereafter  they  would  be free to  engage  in  prejudicial activities.     In view of the aforesaid submissions the question  which needs consideration is whether in the facts and the  circum- stances  of the present cases, the detaining  authority  was justified,  in law, in passing the orders for the  detention of  the appellants under Section 3(1) of the Act on  October 11,  1988 when the appellants were in custody. The  question as to whether and in what circumstances an order for preven- tive detention may be passed against a person who is already in custody has come up for consideration before this  Court. In  Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan  &  Anr., [1964]  4 SCR 921 decided by the Constitution Bench, it  has been laid down that the question as to whether an order  for detention can be passed against a 308 person who is in detention or in jail will always have to be determined in the circumstances of each case and it has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

observed: "As  an  abstract proposition of law, there may not  be  any doubt  that s. 3(1)(a) does not preclude the authority  from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he  is in  detention or in jail; but the relevant facts in  connec- tion  with the making of the order may differ and  that  may make a difference in the application of the principle that a detention order can be passed against a person in jail. Take for  instance, a case where a person has been  sentenced  to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. It cannot be  seriously suggested  that soon after the sentence of  imprisonment  is pronounced  on the person, the detaining authority can  make an order directing the detention of the said person after he is  released from jail at the end of the period of the  sen- tence  imposed on him. In dealing with this question,  again the considerations of proximity of time will not be  irrele- vant.  On  the  other hand, if a person  who  is  undergoing imprisonment,  for a very short period, say for a  month  or two  or so, and it is known that he would soon  be  released from jail, it may be possible for the authority to  consider the antecedent history of the said person and decide whether the detention of the said person would be necessary after he is  released  from jail, and if the authority is  bona  fide satisfied  that such detention is necessary, he can  make  a valid  order  of detention a few days before the  person  is likely to be released."     In Masood Alam Etc. v. Union of India and Others, [1973] 1  SCC 551 it has been held that merely because  the  person concerned has been served with the order of detention  while in  custody  when it is expected that he would soon  be  re- leased  that service cannot invalidate the order  of  deten- tion. This Court has observed as under: "The  real hurdle in making an order of detention against  a person  already in custody is based on the view that  it  is futile to keep a person in dual custody under two  different orders  but this objective cannot hold good if  the  earlier custody  is without doubt likely to cease very soon and  the detention order is made merely with the object of  rendering it operative when the previous custody is about to cease. ’ 309     In  Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, [1975]  1 SCC 837 it was held that if a person was serving a long time of imprisonment or was in jail custody as an undertrial  and there  was no immediate or early prospect of his  being  re- leased on bail or otherwise, the authority would not legiti- mately  be  satisfied on the basis of his  past  history  or antecedents that he was likely to indulge in similar  preju- dicial activities after his release in the distant or indef- inite future.     In  Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and  Others, [1982] 2 SCC 43 this Court has observed: "Preventive  detention  is resorted to, to  the  art  future action.  If  the detenu is already in jail  charged  with  a serious  offence, he is thereby prevented from acting  in  a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. May be,  in a  given  case  there yet may be need  to  order  preventive detention of a person already in jail. But in such a  situa- tion the detaining authority must disclose awareness of  the fact  that  the person against whom an order  of  preventive detention is being, made is to the knowledge of the authori- ty already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a  preven- tive detention order need to be made."     In  Alijan  Mian  v. District  Magistrate,  Dhanbad  and Others, [1983] 4 SCC 301 in the grounds of detention it  was stated  that  the  subject is in jail and is  likely  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

released  on  bail and that if he was allowed to  remain  at large,  he  will indulge in activities  prejudicial  to  the maintenance  of  public order. After  considering  the  said statement  in  the grounds of detention this Court  has  ob- served: "The  position  would have been entirely  different  if  the petitioners  were  in jail and had to remain in jail  for  a pretty  long  time. 1n such a situation there  could  be  no apprehension of breach of ’public order’ from the  petition- ers.  But the detaining authority was satisfied that if  the petitioners were enlarged on bail, of which there was  every likelihood, it was necessary to prevent them from acting  in a manner prejudicial to public order."     In Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Others, (supra)  in the grounds of detention it was  mentioned  that the  detenu had filed an application for bail and there  was positive  apprehension that after having bail he would  come out of jail and would indulge in activity 310 prejudicial  to  the maintenance of the public  order.  This Court has observed: "On  a  reading of the grounds, particularly  the  paragraph which we have extracted above, it is clear that the order of detention  was passed as the detaining authority was  appre- hensive  that  in case the detenu was released  on  bail  he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. the  apprehension of the detaining authority was  true,  the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail granted, challenge  against that order in the higher forum had to  be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an  under-trail prisoner was likely to get bail an order  of detention  under the National Security Act should not  ordi- narily be passed. We are inclined to agree with counsel  for the  petitioner that the order of detention in  the  circum- stances  is  not  sustainable and is contrary  to  the  well settled  principles indicated by this Court in a  series  of cases relating to the preventive detention."     in  Suraj  Pal Sahu v. State of  Maharashtra  &  Others, (supra)  after considering the earlier decisions this  Court has observed: "If  there was an imminent possibility of the man being  set at  liberty  and  his detention coming to an  end,  then  it appears,  as  a  principle, if his  detention  is  otherwise necessary and justified then there is nothing to prevent the appropriate  authorities  from  being  satisfied  about  the necessity  of  passing an appropriate  order  detaining  the person concerned."     In  Binod Singh v. District Magistrate,  Dhanbad,  Bihar and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 416 it has been laid down: "If a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of  his  being released, the power of  preventive  detention should not be exercised. In the instant case when the actual order  of detention was served upon the detenu,  the  detenu was in Jail. There is no indication that this factor or  the question  that  the said detenu might be  released  or  that there was such a possibility of his release, was taken  into consideration by the detaining authority properly and  seri- ously before the service of the order. A bald statement 311 is merely an ipse dixit of the officer. If there were cogent materials  for  thinking that the detenu might  be  released then these should have been made apparent."     In  Smt.  Shashi Aggarwal v. State of  U.P.  &  Others’, [1988] 1 SCC 4.30 this Court while referring to the decision in  Ramesh  Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah  (Supra)  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

observed: "What was stressed in the above case is that an apprehension of  the detaining authority that the accused if enlarged  on bail  would  again carry on his criminal  activities  is  by itself not sufficient to detain a person under the  National Security Act." This Court has further observed: "Every  citizen  in this country has the right to  have  re- course  to law. He has the right to move the Court for  bail when  he is arrested under the ordinary law of the land.  If the  State  thinks that he does not deserve bail  the  State could  oppose  the  grant of bail. He  cannot,  however,  be interdicted  from moving the court for bail by  clamping  an order  of detention. The possibility of the  court  granting bail  may not be sufficient. Nor a bald statement  that  the person would repeat his criminal activities would be enough. There  must also be credible information or  cogent  reasons apparent on the record that the detenu, if enlarged on bail, would act prejudicially to the interest of public order."     In  Vijay Kumar v. Union of India, [1988] 2 SCC  57,  it has been head that two facts must appear from the grounds of detention, namely: (i)  awareness of the detaining authority of the  fact  that the detenu is already in detention, and (ii) there must be compelling reasons justifying such deten- tion,  despite  the fact that the detenu  is  already  under detention.     Shetty,  J., in his concurring judgment, has  posed  the question:  what should be the compelling  reason  justifying the  preventive detention, if the person is already in  jail and where should one find it? The learned judge has rejected the contention that it can be found from 312 material  other than the grounds of detention and  the  con- nected  facts  therein  and has held  that  apart  from  the grounds of detention and the connected facts therein,  there cannot be any other material which can enter into the satis- faction  of the detaining authority. The learned  judge  has also  observed that if the activities of the detenu are  not isolated or casual and are continuous or part of the  trans- action or racket, then, there may be need to put the  person under preventive detention, notwithstanding the fact that he is  under  custody in connection with a  case.  The  learned judge  has quoted the following observations from the  judg- ment  of this Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of  Maharash- tra, (Supra): "But  where the offences in respect of which the  detenu  is accused  are so interlinked and continuous in character  and are of such nature that these affect continuous  maintenance of essential supplies and thereby jeopardize the security of the State, then subject to other conditions being fulfilled, a  man being in detention would not detract from  the  order being passed for preventive detention."     In N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and  Anoth- er, (Supra) the legal position has been summed up as under: "We  may  summarise  and reiterate  the  settled  principle. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not  invali- date  an order of his preventive detention and the  decision must depend on the facts of the particular case;  preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from  acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the  maintenance of public order etc. ordinarily it  is  not needed when the detenu is already in custody; the  detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of  subsisting custody  of  the detenu and take that  factor  into  account

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

while  making  the  order; but, even so,  if  the  detaining authority  is reasonably satisfied on cogent  material  that there  is likelihood of his release and in view of  his  an- tecedent activities which are proximate in point of time  he must  be detained in order to prevent him from indulging  in such  prejudicial  activities  the detention  order  can  be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release. This appears to us, to be the correct legal position." In  this case this Court has pointed out that there  was  no indication in 313 the detention order read with its annexure that the  detain- ing authority considered it likely that the detenu could  be released  on bail and that the contents of the order  showed the  satisfaction of the detaining authority that there  was ample material to prove the detenu’s complicity in the  Bank dacoity  including sharing of the booty in spite of  absence of his name in the FIR as one of the dacoits. The Court held that  the order for detention was invalid since it was  made when the detenu was already in jail custody for the  offence of bank dacoity with no prospect of his release.     The  decisions referred to above lead to the  conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against  a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary  that the  grounds of detention must show that (i)  the  detaining authority  was aware of the fact that the detenu is  already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons  justi- fying  such  detention despite the fact that the  detenu  is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the  context  of making an order for detention of  a  person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materi- al  before the detaining authority on the basis of which  it may  be  satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to  be  re- leased from custody in the near future, and (b) taking  into account  the  nature  of the antecedent  activities  of  the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody  he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is  necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in  such activities.     If  the present cases are examined in the light  of  the aforesaid  principles, it can be said that the first  condi- tion  is  satisfied in as much as the grounds  of  detention show that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the appellants were in custody on the date of passing of the order of detention. Can it be said that there was a  compel- ling  reason for passing the order for the detention of  the appellants,  although  they  were in  custody?  The  learned Attorney  General wants the said question to be answered  in the affirmative. He has invited our attention to the grounds of  detention  and has submitted that  the  appellants  were found  engaging  in the transportation and abetting  in  the export  inter-state  of Psychtropic Substances  and  in  the event  of their release from custody, the  appellants  would continue to engage in those activities. The learned Attorney General  has also pointed out that the appellants  had  been remanded to judicial custody upto October 13, 1988 only  and their further remand could be refused by the Magistrate  and the appellants could be released from custody on October 13, 1988. The submission of the learned Attorney General 314 is  that, keeping in view the’ activities of the  appellants and  the likelihood of their being released from custody  on their remand being not extended by the Magistrate on October 13, 1988, the detaining authority, on October 11, 1988, when it  passed  the order of detention, was satisfied  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

detention  of the appellants was necessary even though  they were in custody at that time.     We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General. We are, however, unable  to agree with the same. In the grounds of  detention the detaining authority has only mentioned the fact that the appellants has been remanded to judicial custody till  Octo- ber 13, 1988. The grounds of detention do not show that  the detaining  authority  apprehended that  the  further  remand would not be granted by the Magistrate on October 13,  1988, and the appellants would be released from custody on October 13, 1988. Nor is there any material in the grounds of deten- tion which may lend support to such an apprehension. On  the other  hand we find that the bail applications moved by  the appellants  had  been rejected by the Sessions Judge  a  few days  prior  to  the passing of the order  of  detention  on October 11, 1988. The grounds of detention disclose that the appellants  were  engaged in activities which  are  offences punishable  with  imprisonment under the provisions  of  the Narcotic  Drugs  and Psychotropic Substances Act,  1985.  It cannot,  therefore,  be  said that there  was  a  reasonable prospect  of  the appellants not being further  remanded  to custody  on October 13, 1988 and their being  released  from custody at the time when the order for preventive  detention of  that  appellant was passed on October 11, 1988.  In  the circumstances, we are of the view that the order for  deten- tion  of the appellants cannot be sustained and must be  set aside and the appellants should be released forthwith. These are  the reasons on the basis of which we passed  the  order for  the release of the appellants on January 11,  1990.  It is,  however,  clarified  that in case  the  appellants  are released from custody in the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the question of their preventive detention under the Act  on the  above material may be reconsidered by  the  appropriate authority in accordance with law and this decision shall not be construed as an impediment for that purpose. N.P.V. 315