VISHNU SAHAI, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Jai Singh Yadav has impugned the order dated 10-1-2002 passed by the third Respondent Mr. Jeevesh Nandan District Magistrate, Lucknow, whereby he has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10-1-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 10- 1-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures No. 1 and 3 respectively to this writ petition. 2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the third respondent to issue the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenu are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 3 ). A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C. R. namely C. R. No. 183/2001 under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC (subsequently converted to Section 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC) of police station Cantt. District Lucknow, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 17-7-2001 lodged at the said police station by Ratan Lal Khandelwal. The details pertaining to the said C. R. as contained in the grounds of detention in short read thus: On 17-7-2001 at 9. 30 p. m. the petitioner-detenu alongwith his associates Singar Yadav and Anil Singh went to the PCO cum- General Provision Store of Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal situated in Arjunganj Bazar and threatened to kill Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal because he resisted the illegal extortion of money from them. Singar Yadav instigated that Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal be killed. Thereupon the petitioner- detenu and his associates fired on him, resulting in his sustaining gun shot injuries. On the arrival of Ratan Lal and Sarvesh Singh, the petitioner-detenu and his associates in order to thwart the bid of the shop keepers from arresting them, fired towards them and told them that if they came near, they would be killed. On account of the said firing by the petitioner-detenu and his associates a fear psychosis was created in the market; shop keepers started running helter skelter and started closing their shops. After committing the said acts the detenu and his associates ran away. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On account of the said firing by the petitioner-detenu and his associates a fear psychosis was created in the market; shop keepers started running helter skelter and started closing their shops. After committing the said acts the detenu and his associates ran away. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although Shri M. P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner- detenu has pleaded a large number of grounds in this writ petition but he has only canvassed before us a solitary ground namely that pleaded in the supplementary affidavit filed by Smt. Ram Dulari dated 26-11-2002. The said ground, in substance, is that the solitary C. R. i. e. Cr. No. 183/2001 of P. S. Cantt District Lucknow on the basis of which the impugned order was passed against the petitioner-detenu was registered on 17-7-2001 and the petitioner detenu was arrested in it on 18-7-2001 and was lodged in Jail the next day i. e. on 19-7-2001 but the detention order was issued as late as 10-1-2002 i. e. after a gap of nearly seven months from the date of registration of the C. R. It has been averred that on account of this inordinate delay of nearly seven months in the issuance of the detention order the live link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner- detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has been snapped and the detention order has lost its preventive purport and instead has acquired punitive character. 4. The said ground has been replied to in paras 5 to 11 of the supplementary affidavit dated 2-12-2002 filed by Mr. Jeevesh Nandan (the detaining authority) and a reply to it is also contained in the grounds of detention itself. A perusal of the said paragraphs of the supplementary affidavit and the grounds of detention would make it manifest that the petitioner-detenu was arrested in the said C. R. on 18-7-2001 and was lodged in Jail the next day i. e. on 19-7-2001. In paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit the detaining authority has averred that the detenu applied for bail before the Lucknow Bench of the Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 12-12-2001 and then it was felt that there was imminent likelihood of his getting bail and consequently the sponsoring authority Mr. N. K. Bajpai, Inspector Incharge, P. S. Cantt. N. K. Bajpai, Inspector Incharge, P. S. Cantt. , District Lucknow submitted his recommendation to the S. S. P. , Lucknow through Circle Officer, Hazratganj District Lucknow for detaining the detenu under the National Security Act. On 5-1-2002 Circle Officer, Hazratganj forwarded the recommendation to the S. S. P. , Lucknow who on 9-1-2002 recommended to him (the detaining authority) and consequently on 10-1-2002 the detenu was detained vide impugned detention order. 5. We have perused the averments contained in the supplementary affidavit dated 26-11-2002 filed by Smt. Ram Dulari and those contained in paras 5 to 11 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the detaining authority and the grounds of detention and are constrained to observe that there is no merit in the pleading contained in the supplementary affidavit filed by Smt. Ram Dulari. 6. It would become manifest from the above that C. R. No. 183/2001 of P. S. Cantt. District Lucknow was registered on 17-7-2001; the petitioner detenu was arrested in it on 18-7-2001; he was lodged in Jail on 19-7-2001; continued to remain in Jail till 10-1-2002 on which date the detention order was passed; it was only on 12- 12-2001, (the date when petitioner-detenu preferred bail application in the said C. R. in the Lucknow Bench of the Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) that it was felt that there was imminent likelihood of his being released on bail in the said C. R. and consequently as is manifest from the averments contained in para 8 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the detaining authority, no time was lost thereafter in passing the detention order against him. As seen above the sponsoring authority mooted a proposal to preventively detain the detenu under the National Security Act with utmost promptitude. It is elementary common sense that sometime would have taken in formulating the proposal by the Police of Police Station Cantt. District Lucknow. The said proposal was forwarded through Circle Officer, Hazratganj, District Lucknow. The said proposal was forwarded by him (C. O.) on 5-1-2002 to the S. S. P. , Lucknow who on 9-1-2002 forwarded it to the detaining authority who on the next date i. e. on 10-1-2002 passed the detention order against the petitioner-detenu. 7. In the said factual matrix in our view there has been no delay in the issuance of the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenu. 7. In the said factual matrix in our view there has been no delay in the issuance of the impugned detention order against the petitioner-detenu. Till 12-12-2001, (the date on which the detenu preferred bail application in the said C. R. in this Bench), the detaining authority rightly felt that there was no imminent likelihood of his being released on bail and consequently did not feel it necessary for issuing the impugned detention order against the detenu. It was only when on the said date when the detenu applied for bail he felt that there was imminent likelihood of his being released on bail and the necessity of preventively detaining him vide the impugned order. We have seen that thereafter no time was lost and the detention order was passed within 24 days from the date of the petitioner-detenu preferring the bail application in this Bench, (the bail application was preferred on 12-12-2001 and the detention order was passed on 10-1-2002 ). 8. For the said reasons in our view there was no unexplained delay in the issuance of the detention order against the petitioner-detenu. It is well-settled that delay simpliciter in the issuance of a detention order does not vitiate it on the vice of delay. A detention order is only vitiated on the vice of delay in the issuance if there is no satisfactory explanation (see AIR 1982 SC Page 8 at page 13, Hemlata v. State of Maharashtra ). Consequently the pleading contained in the supplementary affidavit filed by Smt. Ram Dulari fails. 9. We may also mention that all the pre-requisites enjoined by law for issuing detention order against a person in custody have been fulfilled in the instant case. In para 19 of the oft quoted case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1196, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down thus: " (19) The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. " 10. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that a detention order can be issued against a person in custody provided: (a) awareness is shown by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that the person sought to be preventively detained is in custody and (b) despite (a) there is compelling necessity to detain him. Compelling necessity has two facets namely: (i) existence of cogent material about the imminent likelihood of the release of the person sought to be detained from the custody; and (ii) cogent material in respect of the likelihood of his committing prejudicial activities similar to those contained in the ground of detention. 11. When we examine the grounds of detention in the background of the ratio laid down in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India (supra) we find that all the pre-requisites have been fulfilled. The grounds of detention show that the detaining authority has shown his awareness that the petitioner- detenu was in Jail custody; he was trying to come out from the same because he had preferred an application for bail before this Bench; and after being released on bail, he would revert to committing prejudicial activities similar to those are contained in the grounds of detention and hence it was imperative to detain him. 12. For the said reasons we find the aforesaid ground devoid of merit. 13. No other ground was pressed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 14. For the aforesaid reasons we confirm the impugned detention order and dismiss the writ petition. Petition dismissed. .