JUDGMENT 1. - These two habeas corpus petitions u / Art. 226 of the Constitution of India have been put in by Bhopal Singh and Kachru, who have been detained vide order dated 4.4.1997 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under section 3(1) Of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PIT NDPS Act for the sake of Privity). 2. In the petitions, it has been averred that the petitioners were arrested on 13.10.1996 by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Neemuch at Pratapgarh Bus Stand and narcotic substance weighing 1 Kg. was recovered from each of them and they were challenged under the N.D.P.S. Act and thereafter on 4.4.1997 the impugned order was passed. The order has been assailed on various grounds including the one that the petitioners were already in custody and there was no compelling necessity for the issuance of the detention orders and there was no likelihood of releasing the petitioners on bail as no bail application has been filed by the petitioners. 3. In the counter, the respondents justified the detention order. Regarding the grounds that the petitioners were already in custody for the N.D.P.S. Act case, it has been stated that if no bail application has been filed by the petitioners so far, it does not mean that they would not do it in future. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As already stated, the detention order has been challenged on various grounds, but Mr. Shah confines his argument to ground (C) of Para No. 5 in the writ petition and, therefore, we shall confine ourselves to the contentions put forward in this regard. 5. Mr. Joshi concedes that the petitioners are in custody and they are facing trial for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act and that they have not moved bail application so far. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union of India, 1990 SC 1196 has observed that where the detenu is already in custody, there should be compelling reasons for passing the orders for the detention of the detenu. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union of India, 1990 SC 1196 has observed that where the detenu is already in custody, there should be compelling reasons for passing the orders for the detention of the detenu. That was also a case under the PIT NDPS Act and it was noticed that the detenu was remanded to the judicial custody and the bail application of the detenu for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act was rejected. There lordships observed that it could not be said that there was reasonable prospect of the detenu not being further remanded to custody and his being released from custody. The detention order was quashed by their lordships. This Court had also considered similar fact situation in the case of Kehar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1997(2) RLW 1404. 6. As already stated, it is no more in dispute that the petitioners were in custody on the date when the detention order was issued and no bail application was moved by them in that matter. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that ordinarily bail shall not be granted to an accused for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 37 provides that the bail application of an accused of the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act can not be accepted when opposed by the Public Prosecutor. The Court can grant bail to such accused only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed any offence and he is not likely to commit such offence in future. Thus the provisions of bail under the N.D.I'.S. Act are very stringent. 7. In the instant case the contraband article weighing 1 Kg. is alleged to have been recovered from each of two petitioners. There is the remotest possibility that they may be granted bail. Since the petitioners are facing trial for the offence under N.D.P.S. Act, it can not be said that custody of the petitioners is for a short duration. The ratio in 'the case of Dharmendra Suganchand (supra) that where the was already in custody, the detention order can be passed only when there are compelling reasons squarely applied in the instant case. When the detentes are already in custody, it can not be rationally inferred that they would engage in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs if not detained under the PIT NDPS Act. When the detentes are already in custody, it can not be rationally inferred that they would engage in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs if not detained under the PIT NDPS Act. 8. Consequently, the detention orders impugned in the petitions are hereby quashed. It is clarified that in case the petitioners are released from custody in the criminal case filed against them under the N.D.P.S. Act, the question of their preventive detention under the PIT N.D.P.S. Act on the material cited in the detention order may be reconsidered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and this decision shall not be construed as an impediment for the purpose.Petition allowed. *******