JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges order of detention u/s 3 (1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PITNDPS Act') vide order dated 8.4.97 passed by Joint Secretary to Government of India. It is alleged that petitioner was travelling with one Fakirchand. Both of them were apprehended. Search of the brief-case of Fakirchand was taken. 800 gms. of heroin was found from his possession. On search of the body of Kailashchand (present petitioner) two tickets from Neemuch to Ajmer were found from his possession. He was, therefore, taken to be an associate of Fakirchand and was arrested. Both of them were produced before the Special Judge. Bail application filed on behalf of present petitioner was rejected by the Sessision Judge on 18.10.96. He then filed application before the High Court. The same was rejected vide order dated 2.12.96. Thereafter this order of detention was passed on 8.4.97 which was served on the petitioner on 22.4.97 in jail as he was already in custody. Petitioner filed representation. Having failed in getting favourable order from the authorities, he filed this petition in this court on 17.12.97. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that there is total non-application of mind. Nothing was found from the possession of the petitioner. He was arrested on conjectures and surmises. It was then submitted that the bail application of petitioner was already rejected by the High Court and, therefore, there was no likelihood of his being released and, therefore, observation (subjective satisfaction) of the detaining authority is not based on sound reasoning. As against it, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that petitioner was found in association of Fakirchand from whom 800 gms. of heroin was seized. Petitioner was a companion as he was keeping ticket for Fakirchand also. Thus, petitioner was an accomplice in the act of transportation of heroin. It is then submitted that petitioner has admitted in his statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act that he is involved in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and was carrying the material for Somadevi of Karolbagh, Delhi. We have considered rival contentions of learned counsel. In this case the detention order has been passed with a view to prevent him from indulging in the purchase, possession, concealment and abetment of sale of Narcotic Drugs. We have considered rival contentions of learned counsel. In this case the detention order has been passed with a view to prevent him from indulging in the purchase, possession, concealment and abetment of sale of Narcotic Drugs. It is evident from the facts stated above that the petitioner was arrested on 21.9.96. Bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by Sessions Judge on 18.10.96. High Court also rejected the bail application on 2.12.96. Thus, to that extent, the order of refusal of bail has taken its final shape. It is surprising that why the detaining authority waited till 8.4.97 for passing the order i.e. for nearly six months there is no material to show that he was involved in illicit traffic of drugs during the period of judicial custody. This delay itself goes to show that the detaining authority had no substantial grounds till that date. It is noteworthy that the detenu has retracted his statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act. The facts as disclosed by detaining authority also goes to show that on the basis of information given by the detenu in his statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, a search of the house of Somadevi was taken but nothing objectionable was found. Thus, there is no corroboration of the retracted statement of this detenu. Though the detention orders are passed on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority but Court has powers to examine as to whether there is sufficient material for subjective satisfaction. It is noteworthy that there was no recovery from the detenu. He was only found in possession of two tickets which could have been exchanged or may have been kept by him innocently. There is no corroboration and nothing objectionable was found in possession of Somadevi when her house was searched at the relevant time. Thus, there was no sufficient ground even for subjective satisfaction. There is yet another ground that the petitioner was already in custody. There is nothing to show that despite his being in judicial custody, there was necessity of passing an order or that the detenu was involved in objectionable activity of illicit traffic while in custody also. Thus, there was no sufficient ground even for subjective satisfaction. There is yet another ground that the petitioner was already in custody. There is nothing to show that despite his being in judicial custody, there was necessity of passing an order or that the detenu was involved in objectionable activity of illicit traffic while in custody also. Thus, in this case we find that there was neither sufficient ground for subjective satisfaction and nor compelling reasons for passing a detention order despite the detenu being in judicial custody especially after rejection of bail from Sessions Court and High Court. Though it is also true that the period is to expire on 21.4.98 but the illegal custody even for a day cannot be tolerated. In view of above, petition is accepted. The order of detention is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case (1998) 1 SCC 478 and (1989) 1 SCC 478 followed.