A. R. TIWARI, J, J. ( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions, heard analogously, are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and seek dislodgment of the order of detention as particularized below and issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus for restoration of liberty. ( 2 ) W. P. NO. 204/95 : On the basis of intelligence, the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics searched Bus No. MP 09/50684 of Sidharth Travels, Indore playing between Indore and Bombay at Mhow Naka on 31. 5. 94. The search of the Bus resulted in the recovery and seizure of 2. 250 kgs. of heroin kept concealed in the false bottom of a suit case under the feet of Dinesh Chandra s/c Shankarlal (petitioner M. P. No. 739/95 ). On interrogation, the aforesaid Dinesh Chandra admitted that he along with his two associated this petitioner, Dineshchandra s/o Ramchandra and one Yusuf sb Fakhruddin were carrying heroin concealed in a false bottom of the suit case to Bombay. The petitioner admitted his complicity in his statement recorded on 1. 6. 94. The petitioner is being prosecuted under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, NDPS Act ). The order of detention dated 6th Oct. 1994 (Annexure P/i was passed against the petitioner by Joint Secy. to the Govt. of India under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act. Grounds of detention are shown in Annex. P/2. The order of detention was confirmed by the Govt of India on 29th Dec. 94 (Annexure P/3 ). This order of detention (Annexure P/i) isunder challenge in this writ petition. W. P. No. 738/95 : After recovery of heroin as noted above, the house of the petitioner situated in village Balaguda, was searched on 1. 6. 1994. The quantity of 800 gms of opium was seized under NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner gave the statement on 2. 6. 94 admitting his complicity in illegal trade, sought to be prevented. The order of detention of 6th Oct. 94 (Annexure P/2) was passed by Joint Secy. to the Govt. of India. The grounds of detention are shown in Annexure P/3. The order of detention was confirmed by the Govt. of India on 29th Dec. 1994 (Annexure P/2 ). The order of detention (Annexure P/2) is challenged in this writ petition. W. P. No. 739/95: The facts are similar as chronicled with regard to W. P. No. 204/95. of India. The grounds of detention are shown in Annexure P/3. The order of detention was confirmed by the Govt. of India on 29th Dec. 1994 (Annexure P/2 ). The order of detention (Annexure P/2) is challenged in this writ petition. W. P. No. 739/95: The facts are similar as chronicled with regard to W. P. No. 204/95. The only difference is that the suit case was found in the bus below the feet of the petitioner. In his statement recorded on 1. 6. 94, he admitted the possession and recovery of heroin as noted above. The order of detention dated 6th Oct. 1994 (Annexure P/2) was passed by the Joint Secy. to the Govt. of India under Sec3 (1) of the Act. The grounds of detention are shown in Annexure P/3. The order of detention was confirmed by the Govt. of India on 29th Dec. 1994 (Annexure P/i ). This order (Annexure P (2) is impugned in this writ petition. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have filed return in oppugnation. ( 4 ) WE have heard M/s. B. B. L. Agrawal and C. M. Mathur for the petitioners and Shri B. G. Neema learned counsel for the respondent. ( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioners formulated the attack against the order of detention as under: (a) The statements under Sec. 67 of the Act are not voluntary as admittedly the same were recorded in the presence of Town Inspector Shri R. S. Chauhan and other Police Officers. The alleged makers of the statements were, thus not free agents. (b) The detenu Dineshchandra s/c Shankarlal did not apply for bail and is in judicial custody in Criminal. Case registered under NDPS Act, Hence his detention is illegal. (c) The grounds are vogue in that it is not clear whether the house of Shankarlal was searched or the house of Dineshchandra s/c Shankarlal was searched. Grounds No. 5 and 6 are thus much obscure. (d) The orders of detention have been passed on observation trendt of the activities. (para 12) whereas no other instances of such similar nature have been furnished. The orders of detention have been passed without due application of mind and deserve to be demolished. ( 6 ) SHRI B. G. Neema learned counsel for the respondents, forcefully supported the orders of detention and contended that the contentions advanced are not on firm foundation. (para 12) whereas no other instances of such similar nature have been furnished. The orders of detention have been passed without due application of mind and deserve to be demolished. ( 6 ) SHRI B. G. Neema learned counsel for the respondents, forcefully supported the orders of detention and contended that the contentions advanced are not on firm foundation. He submitted that Dineshchandra of W. P. No. 204/95 and Dineshchandra of W. P. No. 739/95 and one Yusuf were travellers in the bus. They had common tickets, which demonstrated their jointness in the venture. The suit case was recovered from the place below the feet of Dineshchandra s/o Shankarlal and key was also supplied by him. This completed chain. Against Shankarlal he submitted that the house was searched and quantity of 800 gms of opium was recovered and as such, Shankarlal father of Dineshchandra stands connected. He, therefore, submitted that the orders deserve to be sustained. ( 7 ) THE detenu Shankarlal (W. P. No. 738/95) secured bail on 6. 10. 94 on the ground of non submission of challan within requisite period provided under the law. The order of detention is also of 6th Oct. 1994. Dineshchandra s/c Shankarlal (WP No. 739/95) did not apply for bail and is in judicial custody. ( 8 ) WE first take up the case of Dineshchandra sb Shankarlal. Huge quantity of 2. 250 kgs. of opium was recovered from the suit case belonging to this petitioner detenu. Key of suit case was supplied by him. The particulars elicited from him through his statement, clearly establishes his involvement in illicit traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Despite reasonable opportunity, he didnt elect to submit representation against his detention. In view of the recovery and antecedent it cannot be said that the order of detention is bad in law and that there was no occasion to pass the order with a view to preventing him from engaging in possession and transportation of Narcotics Drugs and illicit traffic which has potential of destroying national wealth and health. In our view, the grounds are proper and fully justify the passing of the order against this detenu. The contentions raised against detention of this detenu are found to be devoid of substance. We, therefore, reject the contention so far as this petitioner is concerned. In our view, the grounds are proper and fully justify the passing of the order against this detenu. The contentions raised against detention of this detenu are found to be devoid of substance. We, therefore, reject the contention so far as this petitioner is concerned. ( 9 ) AS regards the remaining two petitioners, Dinesh Chandra s/c Ramchandra and Shankarlal sb Jagannath, We noticed the under noted facts and features. (a) Nothing is recovered from possession of Dineshchandra. The only ground of detention is shown to be common tickets for travelling in the aforesaid bus. We put the question to the counsel for the respondent that if this contention has any merit then why Yusuf-co-traveller was not arrested on the spot? The reply is very unsatisfactory because it is said that Yusuf is absconding. If Yusuf was present in the bus and was connectable on account of common ticket, it is inexplicable as to why he was not taken into custody and why no attempt was made to arrest him and later subject him to similar order of detention. (b) If Yusuf was not flagellated by similar order, then Dineshchandra, similarly situate, exfacie could not merit such a discriminatory treatment. Contrary action thus infringes the principle Like should be treated aliket (c) Grounds, particularly No. s 5 and 6 proclaim obscurity as it is not clear as to whose house was actually searched. This disabled two detenues to avail of the benefit under Art. 22/57 effectively. (d) The alleged statement, branded as inculpatory lost the value as it was recorded in the presence of T. I. Shri Chauhan and others. (e) There is no proper material as regards abatement, which is shown to be the cause for detention (Annexure P/i ). (f) If single instance of recovery of 800 gms opium in search existed, then it is not indicative of trend, as stated in grounds and in cogently capable of being dealt with under ordinary law to which recourse is already taken. (g) The prosecution exhibited non chalance in matter of presentation of charge-sheet till 6. 10. 94 and enabled detenue Shankarlal to secure bail on default. This attitude, in the context of Annexure P/i, makes the order meretricious. (g) The prosecution exhibited non chalance in matter of presentation of charge-sheet till 6. 10. 94 and enabled detenue Shankarlal to secure bail on default. This attitude, in the context of Annexure P/i, makes the order meretricious. ( 10 ) IN the backdrop of these factors, we find that there is lone instance of search of house and as such there is no proper material to indicate that the detenues (Dineshchandra s/c Ramesh Chandra and Shankarlal) were likely to indulge in such activities which needed to be prevented by detention. In Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. , it is held that:"the satisfaction of detaining authority that detenu might indulge in serious offences causing threat to public order, solely on the basis of a solitary murder cannot be said to be Proper. " ( 11 ) YET another aspect staring in the face is that the incidents are of 31. 5. 94 and 1. 6. 94 but the orders are passed on 6. 10. 94 i. e. after more than four months. There is nothing to show as to what were the events during this gap. This non-consideration of immediate past events introduced infirmity. ( 12 ) BOMBAY High Court held on 7. 9. 87 in its order rendered in M. M. Khan v. Govt. of Maharasthra, that non-consideration of events immediately preceding the order is fatal and vitiates the order. The orders, concerning these two detenues based on no recovery and single but vegue allegation of search, are thus found to be manifestly infirm and invalid. ( 13 ) ART 21 forbids the deprivation of liberty except according to procedure established by law. In Babusingh v. State of U. P. , it is held that liberty is too precious a value recognized under Art. 21. of our Constitution. We conclude that liberty of these two detenues stands eclipsed without due procedure of law as there is offence of proper application of mind to various factors. Their detention thus merits to be mortalised. That is the answer, sure and simple. of our Constitution. We conclude that liberty of these two detenues stands eclipsed without due procedure of law as there is offence of proper application of mind to various factors. Their detention thus merits to be mortalised. That is the answer, sure and simple. ( 14 ) ON our bestowal of anxious consideration to material in its entirety, we find that the order of detention passed against Dineshchandra s/o Ramchandra and Shankarlal s/o Jagannath are vitiated as discussed above and deserve to be demolished but as regards the order of detention passed against Dineshchandra S/c Shankarlal, we find that the same is on the linchpin of firm foundation and merits to be sustained. ( 15 ) EX consequenti, we allow the writ petition filed by Dineshchandra sb Ramchandra (WP No. 204/95) and quash the order of detention passed against him. Likewise, we also allow the writ petition filed by Shankarlal (WP No. 738/95) and quash the order of detention passed against him. We accordingly direct that these petitioners (Dineshchandra s/o Ramchandra and Shankarlal sb Jagannath) shall be set at liberty forthwith if their detention is not required in connection with any other matters. We, however, dismiss writ petition filed by Dineshchandra sb Shankarlal (WP No. 739/95) and sustain the order of detention passed on 6. 10. 94 (Annexure P/2) against him. ( 16 ) THIS order shall be retained in the W. P. No. 204/95 and its copies shall be placed in the record of other two connected writ petitions, as noted above. Ordered accordingly. .