JUDGMENT : A.K. Ganguly, C.J. - This Writ Petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been filed by Shanti Prasad Mishra, who was detained pursuant to an Order Dated 20th February, 2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chhatrapur u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. There are several grounds in support of the order of detention. The order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the Petitioner in due time. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not assailed the grounds on merits, but submits that this present petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus ought to succeed on a different ground. He submits that while the order and grounds of detention were served on the Petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, while the Petitioner was already in jail. 3. It has been contended that an order of detention can only be passed if at the time of passing the order of detention the detenue is out of jail or the detaining authority has the satisfaction that the Petitioner even though in jail, is likely to be released on bail very soon. No such satisfaction has been recorded in the grounds of detention. 4. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the relevant part of the grounds of detention. The said part is set out below: You are now in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N. Pur PS Case No. 175 dated 18.09.2006 u/s 147/148/452/457/395/427/ 506/149/120 (B) Indian Penal Code/R/W 25/27 Arms Act and were lodged in Circle Jail Berhampur. While in jail custody you have applied for bail in B.N. Pur PS Case No. 175 dated 19.9.2006 in B.A. No. 216/2007. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge has directed through the SDJM, Berhampur vide copy of Order Sheet dated 15.2.2007 to call for the records in N.N. Pur PS Case No. 175 dtd. 18.9.2006 from CSI B. Sadar Court on or before 19.2.2007 vide Annexure-XXXV. 5. This Court held in a number of decisions, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when a person is detained already, an order of preventive detention can be served on him, only where the detaining authority comes to a satisfaction based on bona fide grounds that the Petitioner is likely to be released on bail. 5. This Court held in a number of decisions, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when a person is detained already, an order of preventive detention can be served on him, only where the detaining authority comes to a satisfaction based on bona fide grounds that the Petitioner is likely to be released on bail. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Srikanta Kumar Sahu ' Golia Vs. State of Orissa and Another, . 6. Similar view has been taken in a subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pua alias Manas Ranjan Das Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . 7. In this case the aforesaid ground has been taken by the Petitioner in Paragraph 23 of the petition. These averments have not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, Opposite Party No. 3 8. In that view of the matter, this Court quashes the impugned order of detention dated 20th February, 2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chhatrapur, under Annexure-1 as well as the grounds of detention dated 23.2.2007 under Annexure-2 and directs that the Petitioner, namely, Shanti Prasad Mishra be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is no longer required in connection with any other case. 9. The Habeas Corpus petition is thus allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed