Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. One Mrs. Ananda Pasupathi Pillai (petitioner) is the mother of the detenu Balaeswaran alias Siva. 2. (a) On 212. 1994 at about 11.30 hrs., near Polo Military Ground oft G.S.T.Road, St.Thomas Mount, the Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., intercepted the detenu and another by name Elanchezhian and recovered two packets of heroin from each one of them and each of the packets weighed a kilogram, that is to say, all the four packets seized from them weighed four kilograms of heroin. (b) Both of them, it is said, were stated to have been interrogated in turn, were stated to have given confessional statements voluntarily and the statements so given by them were recorded. They appear to have stated in their statements that the said packets of herein were obtained at Indore and transferred to Madras for eventual export to Srilanka. They were arrested and produced before court for remand. (c) Successive bail application, it appeals, had been filed before the Special Judge (NDPS), Madras, and all those bail applications so filed, it is said, had been dismissed and consequently, they were stated; to be anguishing in prison. (d) In one of the joint bail applications filed, that is, in Crl.M.P. No. 1877 of 1994 they appear to have taken a plea that the statements recorded from them were the resultant product of coercion and that they were not in conscious possession of heroin stated to be seized they retracted their earlier confessional statements given before the Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., Madras. 3. On taking into consideration, the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority and arriving at the subjective satisfaction, the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Madras-9 (first respondent) in is letter No.8403/P and E. XV/95-2 dated 24. 1995 passed the impugned order of detention on the detenu under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988), with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs (herein) in, future. 4. Likewise, the said Elanchezhian was also stated to have been detained and he in turn, challenged his detention by filing H.C.P. No.804 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19. 4. Likewise, the said Elanchezhian was also stated to have been detained and he in turn, challenged his detention by filing H.C.P. No.804 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19. 1995 allowed the said habeas corpus petition and quashed the detention order and set him at liberty on the ground that the Detaining Authority was not at all alive to the factum of retraction of the confessional statement in the grounds of detention and therefore the subjective satisfaction derived by such Authority in clamping the order of detention on him was vitiated. 5. The present action had been resorted to by the petitioner (mother of the detenu) challenging impugned order of detention on the similar ground as had been taken by the said Elanchezhian. 6. Mr.B.Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates such a ground taken during the course of his arguments, to which course, Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor neither conceded such a position nor opposed the same, but having placed in such predicament situation has no other go but to say that he left the same to be considered by this Court. He however, produced the relevant file for perusal and consideration of this Court. 7. On a perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu, along with the grounds of detention, we are able to find at Page 51 of a copy of the bail application filed in Crl. M.P. No. 1877 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS), Madras in F.I.R. No. 1564 of 1994 in NIB Cr. No. 62 of 1994. In paragraph 3 of the said application it is reflected as below: “The petitioners submit that all the statements which are obtained by the respondents are under coercion and force. The alleged recovery has not taken place as per the F.I.R. and the petitioners were not in conscious possession of the contraband. They were taken by the respondents by coercion and later on they were remanded by the respondents. The petitioners retract all the statements which were given before the respondents.” 8. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent-Detaining Authority was alive to the factum of retraction of the confessional statement stated to have been made by the detenu before the sponsoring authority at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention. 9. The moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent-Detaining Authority was alive to the factum of retraction of the confessional statement stated to have been made by the detenu before the sponsoring authority at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention. 9. With so much of anxiety and concern, we perused the grounds of detention, the first respondent- Detaining Authority said thus: “I am aware that you are in remand in Central Prison, Madras, I am also aware that you moved four bail applications and while one bail application was withdrawn and two more bail applications were dismissed, now only the last bail application is pending before the court and that there is an imminent possibility that you will come out on bail. In such cases, bail is granted after lapse of some time by the same court or by the superior court. If you come out on bail, you will indulge in similar activities of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs in future. The recourse to normal punitive law would not have the desired effect of.......effectively preventing you from indulging in similar activities in future. Hence, there is compelling necessity to detain you under PIT N.D.P.S. Act, 1989 (Central Act 46 of 1988) to prevent you from engaging yourself in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs in future.” 10. From what has been extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the first respondent- Detaining Authority while considering the question relatable to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, took into consideration, the factum of filing of four bail applications before the competent court and that is all and nothing further. From what has been extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the first respondent- Detaining Authority while considering the question relatable to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, took into consideration, the factum of filing of four bail applications before the competent court and that is all and nothing further. That is to say, he was not alive to the factum of retraction of the confessional statement that the detenu was stated to have earlier made to the Sponsoring Authority and for such state of affairs, to say that the said Detaining Authority derived the subjective satisfaction after taking into consideration of the factum of retraction of the earlier confessional statement that the detenu is said to have made before the sponsoring authority is divorced of the reality of the situation and in such state of affairs, it cannot be stated that the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority, after being alive to all facts inclusive of the factum of his having been earlier made by the detenu to the sponsoring authority. Such a factor is definitely one which would vitiate the subjective satisfaction derived by the first respondent- Detaining Authority in clamping the order of detention on the detenu. In this view of the matter, this habeas corpus petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In fine, this habeas corpus petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless and until he is required to be detained in connected with any other cause or case.