Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. C. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Daniel Manoharan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 2. The order of preventive detention issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short "the Act") is challenged by the brother of the detenu. The order of detention was passed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, on 20.03.2007. It is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the State Government granted approval as contemplated under Section 3(4) of the Act on 30.03.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conclusion of the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is not based on any cogent material on record but, on the other hand, it appears to be the ipse dixit of the detaining authority. In a series of decisions, it has been held by the Supreme Court that even where a person is in custody the detention order can be passed, provided the detaining authority had cogent materials on record to come to the conclusion that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. 4. In the present case, paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention reflects the so-called conclusion of the detaining authority and is extracted hereunder: "5.I am aware that Thiru K.Shahul Hameed is now at District prison, Srivaikundam as remand prisoner and that he has not filed any bail petition so far. However there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in future. Through the statement of Yusuf, there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application. ..." The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case, keeping in view the serious nature of the allegation, the conclusion of the detaining authority that there was real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, even though he had been arrested only few days back and the investigation was going on is mere ipse dixit and not based on any cogent material. 5. 5. It is of course true that the detaining authority has referred to the statement of one Yusuf, which is available in the booklet, to the effect that a third party coming to know about the detenu had contacted a lawyer and the lawyer has stated that bail application can be filed and the person could be released in one week. We do not think that any credence whatsoever can be given to such a vague statement to come to the conclusion that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in a serious crime of murder which is said to have committed in broad day-light and this only appears to be ipse dixit of the detaining authority rather than a conclusion based on cogent material on record. 6. We are, of course, conscious of the principle that the conclusion of the detaining authority is his subjective satisfaction and ordinarily, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to sit in appeal over such a conclusion and not to interfere with such orders. However, as has been observed by the Supreme Court, such conclusion of the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail must be based on cogent materials on record and not on fanciful statements. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion recorded by the detaining authority in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention is on mere ipse dixit and not based on any material and therefore the detention order is liable to be quashed. 7. Apart from the above, we find that the provision contained in sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Act does not appear to have been complied with. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act requires the State Government to send a report to the Central Government within seven days from the date of detention or from the date of approval about the fact of detention together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. 8. 8. In the present case, the approval to the order of detention, as contemplated within proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, was given by the State Government on 30.03.2007. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government that a report, dated 30.03.2007, sent by the State Government, was received in the office concerned on 18.04.2007. However, the said counter affidavit does not disclose as to whether along with the report the grounds on which the order has been made and other particulars as contemplated in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act had been furnished. Similarly, even though counter has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, the detaining authority, nothing has been indicated regarding the compliance of Section 3(5) of the Act. From Section 3(5) of the Act, it is evident that within seven days of date of approval, the State Government is required to report the fact of detention to the Central Government "together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order". In the absence of any material that along with the report the grounds and other particulars had been furnished, we are constrained to quash the order of detention notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations. 9. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.1/NSA/2007, dated 20.03.2007, passed by the second respondent is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.