H. K. Sema, J-Shri Laishram Yaima Singh, S/o late L. Sagor Singh of Chajing Karam Mayai Leikai, has been detained in exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of section 3 read with section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short the Act) by an order dated 21.12.1994. Ground of detention has been furnished to the detenu on 24.12.94. The relevant portion of the ground of detention is extracted below : “ 1. That yourself, L. Yaima Singh, was enrolled in the 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles in the month of November, 1988 as Rifleman under Rifleman No.9360 and had undergone training at Manipur Police Training Centre, Pangei till the end of November, 1989 and on foot drill, handing of arms etc ie Rifle, Sten, hurling of hand grenade, Carbine Sten, SLR, Lmg, 2' Motar Bomb, Jungle training and war tactics, etc. When he training was over yourself, L. Yaima Singh was posted at Bn, HQs at Karong where yourself carried out your duty till the middle part of 1992. Then in the month of August, 1992 yourself, L. Yaima Singh, was transferred from Bn HQs, Karong and posted at Telephone Exchance Office, Senapati as static guard till the last part of 1993. In the month of December, 1993 yourself, L. Yaima Singh, was again posted at the Bn HQs, Karong and remained there till the month of August, 1994. Then, in the month of September, 1994 yourself L. Yaima Singh was transferred from Bn Hq and posted at Singjamei Police Out Post under the command of one Jamandar, namely, Lolley Mao of 9th Bn. MR and since then you were at Singjamei Police Out Post. There are 21 (twenty one) 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel ie one Jamander, 1 Havilder, one L/NK, 17 Riflemen and one Follower (Mali) attached to Singjamei Police Out Post. There was also one ASI one Head Constable, two constables and three Home Guard personnel at Sigjamei Police Out Post. The following arms and ammunitions are at Singjamei Police Out Post for the use of Police and 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel at the time of duty : For Police Personnel (i) One .38 revolver with 24 rounds, (ii) 3 (three) MKIV .303 rifles with 148 ammunitions. For 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel. The following arms and ammunitions are at Singjamei Police Out Post for the use of Police and 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel at the time of duty : For Police Personnel (i) One .38 revolver with 24 rounds, (ii) 3 (three) MKIV .303 rifles with 148 ammunitions. For 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel. (i) LMG 1 No. with ammunitions (ii) .38 Revolver 1 No. do (iii) Carbine Sten gun 1 No. do (iv)Sten gun 1 No. do (v) SLR 2 Nos. do (vi) MK IV .303 Rifles 3 Nos. do (vii) MK III .303 Rifles 12 Nos. do That, on 5.12.94 at about 7.40 AM OC Singjamei Police Station received a reliable information that at about 7.30 AM of the same day while OC Singamei Police Out Post along with 5 (five) numbers of 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel namely (1) Rfm No.9445 Ginmolthang Zou, (2) Rfm No.55736 K. Railu Maram, (3) Rm No.7061 Athikho Mao, (4) Rfm No.9842 Dominik Mao and (5) Rfm No.9360 Laishram Yaima Singh were on frisking duty near Singjamei Girls High School, 10 (ten) numbers of unidentified armed youths suspected to be Meitei extremists came in one Maruti Van and one Mini Bus Tata, and after making a brief discussion among the said friskin Police and Manipur Rifles personnel and armed unidentified youths, the service arms and ammunitions of the Police and 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel ie one 38 revolver Titan Tiger with 6rds, one SLR 40 numbers of live rounds, 4 numbers of .303 rifles with 205 live rds, were handed over to the said unidentified armed youths with a view to support the armed movement. Then the said unidentified armed youths opened fire some rounds after collecting all arms and ammunitions from the said police and 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles personnel frisking party, as a mark of victory. The said unidentified armed youths had managed a good escape on the southern side along the Indo Burma Road in the said Maruti Van and Mini Bus Tata. Then after developing more sources, one of the Maruti Vans which was used by the unidentified armed youths had been established ie Maruti Van bearing Registration No.MN 1 A-1011, Cairo dust in colour. In this regard, a case under FIRNo.260 (12) 94 Singjamei PS U/s .3 84/120-B/34IPC, 25 (I-A) Arms Act and 3(1) (2) TADA (P) Act, was registered and investigated into. In this regard, a case under FIRNo.260 (12) 94 Singjamei PS U/s .3 84/120-B/34IPC, 25 (I-A) Arms Act and 3(1) (2) TADA (P) Act, was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation yourself, L. Yaima Singh, Riflemen No.9360 of 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles along with your associate4 Riflemen and the ASI were arrested in the present FIR case on 5.12.94 and remanded to Police custody till 16.12.94, and then remanded to judicial custody on 16.12.94.” 2. Further, the paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of detention runs as follows: “That, yourself, L. Yaima Singh and your associate 4 Riflemen of 9th Bn. MR and Md. Nasib Ali, ASI being law abiding agency made plan to enable capture of all the arms and ammunitions by the member of the out-lawed organisation namely UNLF knowingly well that their activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 4. From the above enumerated facts, it is seen that yourself, L. Yaima Singh, being a responsible Riflemen of 9th BN Manipur Rifles, is a dangerous one with dogged determination to get money with cool calculation and malevolent design to disrupt the public order effecting public tranquility, which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Yourself, L. Yaima Singh has close contact with the members of the out-lawed organisation namely, United National Leberation Front (UNLF in short). 5. In view of your prejudicial activities in the proximate past, it can reasonably be anticipated that you would continue to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in case you be released on bail, hence, application of normal laws against you will not be effective at all, for preventing you from committing prejudicial activities. An alternative measures against you is, therefore, immediately called for. On the above grounds, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do and I have made an order directing that you be detained.” 3. Subsequent to the detention order, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by an order dated 2.5.1995. 4. Subsequent to the detention order, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by an order dated 2.5.1995. 4. The order of detention has been assailed on two grounds : (1) that subsequent to the detention order detenu has been terminated from his service by an order dated 2.5.95 and as such the condition precedent detaining the petitioner is now absent and the detention order is liable to be quashed. (2) that the detenu was arrested on 5.12.94 in connection with FIR Case No.260 (12) 94 SJM PS under section 384/120B/34IPC, 25 (I-A) Arms Act and 3(1) (ii) TADA (P) Act, and remanded to judicial custody on 16.12.94, but there was no awareness in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was in judicial custody, therefore, the detention order has been passed without application of mind, and since no bail application was moved on behalf of the detenu, there was no reasonable apprehension that the detenu would be released on bail. 5. We have heard Mr. Kh Chonjohn Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Jagat Chandra Singh, learned Govt. Advocate. 6. With regard to the first ground that the detenu has been terminated subsequently from service by an order dated 2.5.95 and the basis of which the detaining authority forms the ground of detention is now absent and on this count alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed, has been repealed by Mr. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Additional Govt Advocate. It is submitted by Mr. Jagatchandra Singh that the fact that the detenu has been subsequently terminated from service, would be no ground for rendering the detention order illegal. In this connection Mr. Jagatchandra Singh has referred the decision of the Apex Court in Smti Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan vs. Union of India & others ( AIR 1989 SC 371 ) where it was pointed out by the Apex Court in paragraph 16 of its judgment that subsequent dismissal from service of the detenu would not rendered detention order illegal, because subsequent order of dismissal is not germane to examine the validity of the detention. The connection of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the first ground, therefore, fails. 7. With regard to the 2nd ground, admittedly detenu was arrested on 5.12.94 in connection with an FIR case aforesaid and remanded to police custody till 16.12.94. The connection of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the first ground, therefore, fails. 7. With regard to the 2nd ground, admittedly detenu was arrested on 5.12.94 in connection with an FIR case aforesaid and remanded to police custody till 16.12.94. The detention order was served upon the detenu when he was in judicial custody. No bail application was moved on behalf of the detenu for releasing him on bail. It is, therefore, contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no awareness and application of mind of the detaining authority in passing the detention inasmuch as the apprehension of releasing the detenu was non existence. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Shaikh vs. SN Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & others (AIR 1989 SC 2265) in which it was pointed out by the Apex Court that no application for bail was made on behalf of the detenu at the time when the detention order was passed and therefore the possibility of his coming out on bail was non existence. The Apex Court, further, pointed out that there was no cogent relevant materials and fresh facts has been disclosed which necessitated the making of the order of detention. 8. On perusal of the judgment aforesaid, we are of the view that the ratio of the decision of no assistance to the petitioner's case inasmuch as the fact of that case is different from the facts of the present case. In that case, the bail application was filed by the detenu, was rejected by the Designated Court. Further, the detention order was set aside by the Advisory Board and second detention order was issued by the detaining authority. It is in the facts and circumstances of that case the Apex Court had observed that no fresh facts have been disclosed which necessitated the making of an order of detention. On the other hand, from the grounds of detention as revealed in paragraph 1,3,4 and 5 quoted above, we are clearly of the view that the detaining authority had passed the detention order after application of mind and subjective satisfaction. 9. On the other hand, from the grounds of detention as revealed in paragraph 1,3,4 and 5 quoted above, we are clearly of the view that the detaining authority had passed the detention order after application of mind and subjective satisfaction. 9. In Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India & another reported in AIR 1991 SC 1640 , it was pointed out by the Apex Court in paragraph 11 of its judgment as under: “11. ... Conscious of the fact that all the three detenu were in custody he passed the impugned orders of detention of 10th November, 1989 as he had reason to believe that the detenus would in all probability secured bail and if they are at large, they would indulge in the same prejudicial activity. This inference of the concerned officer cannot be described as bald and not based on existing materials since the manner in which the three detenus were in the process of smuggling diamonds and currency notes was itself indicative of they having received training in this behalf......” In this case one of the detenu, Shri MM Sahul Hamid had not applied for bail. 10. After referring to the catena of earlier decisions the Apex Court had formulated the following principles in para 13 of its judgment in which the detention order can be validly passed even in the case of a person in custody : “(1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material, placed before him; (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a Higher Court.” 11. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a Higher Court.” 11. The Apex Court, further observed as under : “It seems to us well settled that even in a case where a person is in custody, if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand, resort can be had to the law of preventive detention. This seems to be quite clear from case law discussed above and there is no need to refer to the High Court decisions to which our attention was drawn since they do not hold otherwise. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there was no valid and compelling reason for passing the impugned orders of detention because the detenu were in custody.” 12. In the back drop of the principle enunciated by the Apex Court, let us now advert to the facts of the case. From the grounds of detention as quoted above, the authority was aware that the detenu was in custody in connection with an FIR case. Further, from the paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, there was a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would be released on bail and in such event he would continue to act in manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 13. Further, from the grounds of detention as a whole, furnished to the detenu, the detaining authority, considering the gravity of the offence, felt it essential to prevent him from further doing prejudicial activities. 14. From the facts and circumstances as revealed in the grounds of detention and principles laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above, we are clearly of the view that the detaining authority was justified to have resorted to the law of preventive detention even though the detenu was in custody. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this petition and same is dismissed, however no costs.