SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C. J. ( 1 ) BY this petition for a writ of habeas' corpus, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention passed in respect of her husband Dipu @ Sangram Sahu by the District magistrate, Cuttack under Section 3 of the national Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ). The said order of detention was issued on 28-10-2003, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writpetition. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner, to brief, is that the detenu Dipu @ Sangram Sahu is her husband. When he was in judicial custody in connection with some police case he was served with the detention order dated 28-10-2003 issued by the District Magistrate, cuttack under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. After the said order of detention dated 28-10-2003 was served, the grounds of detention which were signed on 31-10-2003 along with other documents were served on the detenu on 31-10-2003. ( 3 ) THE detention order reads as under :"office OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK. ORDER no. 1617/c dated, the 28th October. 2003. WHEREAS, I, Shri Deoranjan Kumar singh, I. A. S. , District Magistrate, Cuttack, have been empowered in Government of orissa in Home Department Order No. 5478/c. , dated 22-9-2003 to exercise the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. AND WHEREAS, I am aware that Shri dipu alias Sangram Sahoo, aged about 24 years, son of Naba Kishore Sahoo of Ranihat sagadiasahi, P. S. Mangalabag in the district of Cuttack is presently lodged in the circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar in connection with Purighat P. S. Case No. 4 dated 5-1-2003, Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 58 dated 10-4-2003 and Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 75 dated 8-5-2003. He had filed bail petition in Purighat P. S. Case No. 4 dated 5-1-2003 in the Sessions Court, Cuttack vide blapl No. 1117/2003 but the same had been rejected on 17-10-2003. He had filed bail petition in Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 58 dated 10-4-2003 in Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide BLAPL No. 7956/2003 on 1-10-2003 and the same is pending for consideration. He had filed bail petition in Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 58 dated 10-4-2003 in Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide BLAPL No. 7956/2003 on 1-10-2003 and the same is pending for consideration. In Mangalabag P. S. Case No. ,75 dated 8-5-2003 he has been granted conditional bail by the Sessions Court, Cuttack but he has not yet furnished ball bond in the case. There is every likelihood that he may be released on bail from Higher Courts, even if ball is rejected in the lower Court in other two cases. Once enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. AND WHEREAS, I am subjectively satisfied, after due application of mind on the materials placed before me, that with a view to preventing Shri Dipu alias Sangram sahoo, son of Naba Kishore Sahoo of Ranihat sagadiasahi, P. S. Mangalabag in the district of Cuttack from acting in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. I do hereby direct that the said Shri Dipu alias sangram Sahoo, son of Naba Kishore Sahoo of Ranihat Sagadlsahi, P. S. Mangalabag in the district of Cuittack be detained in the circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar until further orders. Sd. D. K. Singh, 28-10-2003 district Magistrate : Cuttack. " ( 4 ) IN the grounds of detention it was, inter alia, alleged that the detenu was persistently indulging, in anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Mangalabag and Purighat Police station areas. He had no ostensible means of livelihood and he was actually earning money through various crimes such as murder, robbery, extortion etc. His anti-social activities were increasing day by day and the people of the areas mentioned therein were very much apprehensive for such activities of the detenu. His mere appearance in the locality evoked fear among the public in general and it made the peace-loving citizens panicky. He was also allegedly involved in gang related violence involving frequent clashes between rival gang members over the issue of extortion and other means of illegal collection of money and also over the motive of taking revenge against each other and thereby seriously affecting public order in Cuttack city. He was also allegedly involved in gang related violence involving frequent clashes between rival gang members over the issue of extortion and other means of illegal collection of money and also over the motive of taking revenge against each other and thereby seriously affecting public order in Cuttack city. The public in general did not dare to report against the detenu either before the Police or in a Court of law. In this regard, report of the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack revealed various highhanded criminal activities of the detenu affecting the public order, Said grounds of detention contains further recitals, about various incidents of crime in which the detenu was allegedly Involved and their corresponding case numbers. He was involved in Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 58 dated 10-4-2003 under Section 307/34. IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The said case was then under investigation. The detenu was also involved in Purighat P. S. Case No. 4 dated 5-1-2003 under Sections 302/120-B/34, IPC, 25/27 Arms Act and Section 9 (b)of I. E. Act. In connection with this case two country made revolvers with four numbers of live ammunitions were recovered and seized from the possession of the, detenu. He was also concerned in Purighat P. S. non-f. I. R. case No. 438 dated 17-5-2003 under section 110, Cr PC. The detenu was further involved in Mangalabag P. S. Case No. 75, dated 8-5-2003. At the time the said detention order was issued, the detenu was in judicial custody since 16-5-2003 in connection with the aforesaid two cases of mangalabag Police Station. It was further stated in the said grounds of detention that there was every likelihood that the detenu may be released on bail from higher courts even though his prayer for bail was rejected by the lower Court in two other cases. Once he is released on bail, there is every possibility that the detenu would again Indulge in further anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. So with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act was passed against the detenu. Along with the said grounds of detention, one set of copies of relevant supporting documents were enclosed. So with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act was passed against the detenu. Along with the said grounds of detention, one set of copies of relevant supporting documents were enclosed. The detenu was fur ther informed that he may file his representation against his order of detention to the State government/central Government as well as to the Advisory Board constituted under the said Act. ( 5 ) MANY grounds have been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of this matter. We will deal with only one of the grounds agitated before us by him as we are of the view that on that ground alone this petition can be disposed of. Of the various cases mentioned in the order of detention as well as in the grounds of detention, it appears that Mangalabag p. S. Case No. 75 dated 8-5-2003 is the latest case. The order of detention was passed on 28-10-2003. Therefore, the detection order was passed more or less five months after the incident relating to Mangalabag P. S. case No. 75 dated 8-5-2003 had occurred. But this delay in issuing the order of detention since the last incident which allegedly occurred on 8-5-2003 has not been explained at all. There are number of authorities that such delay, if not satisfactorily explained, is fatal to the order of detention. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state, a feeble attempt was made to explain this delay by showing that the detenu was in custody for a long time and further the detenu was absconding and therefore no order of detention could be issued against him. This explanation appears to be a lame excuse and too feeble an attempt to explain the delay. " If the detenu in -fact had absconded that could not have prevented issuance of the order of detenton against the detenu soon after the Jast incident in connection with Mangalabag P. S. case No. 75 dated 8-5-2003 took place. Had the detention order been issued, it is understood that arrest of the detenu might not have been possible as he had absconded. But mereabscondance is not a ground which could have prevented the detaining authority from issuing the order of detention. Had the detention order been issued, it is understood that arrest of the detenu might not have been possible as he had absconded. But mereabscondance is not a ground which could have prevented the detaining authority from issuing the order of detention. Therefore, this explanation is totally unacceptable. ( 6 ) WE have also heard learned Government Advocate in this regard. He had virtually nothing to say apart from what has been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the state - opposite party. ( 7 ) IN a somewhat similar case in Sk. Serajul v. State of West Betigal AIR 1975 sc 1517 : (1975 Cri LJ 1328 ). the Supreme court had to quash the order of detention. The facts of that case are available from paragraph 2 of the report and it appears therefrom that the order of detention in respect of the detenu bf that case was issued on 24-8-1972 and it was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Burdwan that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This subjective satisfaction, as the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu show, was founded on three incidents of breaking open railway wagons and looting their contents committed by the detenu and his associates. One was an incident of 21-11-1971. the other was an incident on 24-11-1971 and the third was an incident on 15-1-1972. In the context of the facts of that case, the Supreme court held In paragraph 2 of the judgment as follows :". . . . . . . . . Though the last incident occurred on 15th January, 1972, the order of detention was not made until 24th August, 1972, and even after the order of detention was made, the petitioner was not arrested until 22nd February, 1973. There was thus delay at both stages and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, burdwan recited in the order of detention. There was thus delay at both stages and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would be reasonable to assume that if the district Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promptitude both in making the order of detention as also in securing the arrest of the petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities. Of course when we say this we must not be understood to mean that whenever there is delay in making an order of detention or in arresting the detenu pursuant to the order of detention, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The detaining authority may have a reasonable explanation for the delay and that might be sufficient to dispel the inference that its satisfaction was not genuine. But here we find that though an affidavit in reply to the petition was filed by the Deputy Secretary home (Special) Department, Government of west Bengal, no explanation was forthcoming in this affidavit as to why the order of detention was made as late as 24th August, 1972 when the last incident on which it was founded occurred on 15th January, 1972 and why the petitioner was not arrested until 22nd February, 1973. though the order of detention was made on 24th August, 1972. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, contended that the State was not expected to render any explanation in regard to the delay in making the order of detention and arresting the petitioner because no such complaint was made in the petition. But this is hardly an argument which can avail the state when it is called upon the answer a rule issued on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. But this is hardly an argument which can avail the state when it is called upon the answer a rule issued on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is the obligation of the State or the detaining authority in making its return to the rule in such a case to place all the relevant facts before the Court and if there is any delay in making the order of detention or in arresting the detenu which is prima facie unreasonable, the State must give reasons explaining the delay. Here there is no explanation for the delay which has occurred at both stages and in the absence of such explanation, we are not at all satisfied that the District Magistrate, Burdwan applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view 16 preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner. The condition precedent for the making of the order of detention was. therefore, not satisfied, and consequently, the order of detention must be quashed and set aside. " ( 8 ) SIMILAR was the view reiterated by the apex Court in Ahamed Moreen Zabbar v. State of Tamil Nadu : (1999) 17 O. C. R. (SC)208 : (1999 Cri LJ 3488 ). It was a case under the provisions of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Preservation pf Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Subjective satisfaction for issuing the order of detention was based on two incidents of smuggling gold biscuits into India. The detenu of that case admitted his guilt on 8-2-1997 and 19-12-1997. Yet for about eleven months ho detention order was issued. Ultimately the order of detention was issued on 23-11-1998. No satisfactory explanation was available on the record as to why the State Government did not exercise power earlier and this delay in passing the order of detention was held to be unreasonable and on that basis the order of detention was quashed. ( 9 ) RELYING upon a number of similar decisions of the Apex Court, this Court also reiterated the same view in Siba Mahala v. State of Orissa : (2002) 93 Cut L T 12. ( 9 ) RELYING upon a number of similar decisions of the Apex Court, this Court also reiterated the same view in Siba Mahala v. State of Orissa : (2002) 93 Cut L T 12. It was, inter alia, held in this case that failure to explain the delay satisfactorily in issuing the order of detention from the last criminal activity of the detenu may vitiate the detention order and upon such finding the detention order Issued in respect of the defenu of that case was quashed. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, it is manifest from the facts and circumstances of the present case as already stated hereinabove that the detention order in respect of the detenu was issued about five and half months after the last criminal activity in which the detenu was involved and this delay has not been explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Whatever explanation has been given appears to be utterly a lame excuse and we are unable to accept such explanation for holding that before issuing the impugned order of detention against the detenu the detaining authority had subjective satisfaction for such drastic action against the detenu. Such satisfaction is the condition precedent for issuing an order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The impugned order dated 28-10-2003 having been Issued without proper subjective satisfaction on the ground as already stated, we are of the view that this petition must be allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 28-10-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 28-10-2003 under Annexure-1 is quashed. We direct that the detenu Dipu alias Sangram, Sahoo be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. L. MOHAPATRA, J. :-- 12, I agree. Petition allowed.