JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Under challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West being No. Cril/NSA/No. 118 of 2009 Imphal dated 21.12.2009, order of the State Government for approving the detention order and also the order of the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12(1) of the NSA for confirming the detention order dated 27.1.10 thereby fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. 2. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-detenu and also R.S. Reisang, learned GA. appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Mr. C. Komol, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondent No. 4, Union of India. 3. The concise facts, sufficient for deciding the present writ petition, are noted. On 17.12.2009 at about 4 P.M. the Petitioner detenu was arrested by a team of CDO/Imphal West from his house and handed over to the OC Imphal P.S. who registered a regular case under FIR No. 442 (12) 09 IPS under Section 20 UA(P)A Act and he was produced before the concerned Magistrate in connection with that said case and remanded him to police custody till 22.12.09. While he was in the police custody in connection with the said FIR case, learned District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur passed the impugned detention order dated 21.11.09, copy of it was served to him (Petitioner-detenu) while he was in custody in connection with the said FIR case. 4. In pursuance of Section 8 of the NSA the learned District Magistrate under his letter dated 24.12.09, Imphal West, furnished the ground of detention and also copies of the documents which form basic ground of detention to the Petitioner/detenu. The particulars of the documents which form basic ground of detention, copies of those furnished to the Petitioner-detenu, are mentioned in the para 6 of the ground of detention. For easy reference, the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West (ground of detention) is quoted hereunder: Govt., of Manipur Office of the District Magistrate: Imphal West District No. Cril/NSA/No. 118 of 2009 Imphal, the 24th December, 2009 To Shri Soibam Joy Singh @ Langol @ Leilangba, (37 yrs) s/o (L) S. Kullachandra Singh of Lalambung Makhong PS Imphal, Dist. Imphal West, Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. Imphal West, Manipur. Subject: Grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980. In pursuance of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 you are hereby informed that the grounds of detention are as follows: 1) That, you have joined the banned organization namely Peoples Liberation Army (PLA in short) in the month of March, 2007 through Shri Romi Singh @ Inunganba of Singjamei ChngmHafaak an important member of PLA. The Revolutionary Peoples' Front (RPF in short) is its political wing. The avowed aim and object of the banned organization namely - Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA in short) is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and to create an independent, sovereign State of Manipur. For this purpose, die said organization started procuring of arms and ammunition through foreign countries and recruited youngsters from various communities in Manipur. In pursuance of their objectives, the members of this organization have committed serious of heinous crimes sudi as murder, dacoity, robbery extortion, kidnapping for ransom from different parts of Manipur. The ring leaders have sought foreign assistance and established links with countries like Banglalesh, Myanmar (Burma Pakistan and other countries inimical to India and committed series of prejudicial activities affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. The Revolutionary Peoples' Front (RPF in short) is its political wing. A joint declaration was signed by the President of RPF and the chairman of PREPAK and UNLF on the 1st March 1999 for the formation of a new underground organization namely- The Manipur Peoples' Liberation Front (MPLF in short). In consideration of the large scale prejudicial activities of die Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA in short), its political wing the Revolutionary Peoples' Front (RPF) and the Manipur Peoples' Liberation (NFFLF) were declared as an unlawful Association by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide the gazette of India Notification under No. S.C. 2880 (F) dated 12.11.2009. 2. That, after joining the organization, Shri Romi Singh @ Inunganba directed you to work in die People's Militia (PM in short) of external affair of PLA under the command of Shri Nonglhombam Dilip Singh @ Jana @ Nawangba of Kwakeidiel Kmjeng Leikai, S/S Capt of PLA. Accordingly, you started to work in the People's Militia of external affair under the command of Shri Nongthombam Dilip Singh @ Jana @ Nawangba of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai. Accordingly, you started to work in the People's Militia of external affair under the command of Shri Nongthombam Dilip Singh @ Jana @ Nawangba of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai. The main task of the People's Militia is to contact the members of the local clubs, Meira Paibis, NGOs etc. and to give awareness program on funding them by the PLA organization and to take important role in the guise of civilian to facilitate the aim and object of the RPF/PLA by giving help to the above frontal organization. Shri Nongthombam Dilip Singh @ Jana @ Nawangba of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai directed you to carry out the above assignment and to enroll new volunteers of People's Militia and to collect important information. Accordingly, you started to carry out the assignment, collected information and passed the same to the senior members of the PLA. Over and above, you recruited Shri Sarangdiem Somen @ Lukhoi S/o S. Tomba Singh of Wahengkhuman Mamang Leikai and Sarungbam Pradip Singh @ Sanatomba Singh s/o S. Khomei Singh of Haoreibi Awang Leikai as new volunteers of People's Militia. On 20.9.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. you were arrested by a team of CDO/IW and remanded into judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 315 (9) 2009 IPS under Section 17/20 UA (P) A Act. But you were released on bail by die Court on 12.10.2009. 3) That, after released on bail by the Court on 12.10.2009,you stayed at your house with your family members. But you could not stay longer in normal life with your family member even though you were arrested and detained in judicial custody as you were determined to work again for the organization. With this view in mind, in the 3rd week of October, 2009 you contacted one Siltonkumar Singh, S/s Sgt. Major of PLA/RPF and started to work again for the organization. Just after joining the organization, you carried out the above assignment as usual till you arrest. Such act of giving awareness program to the general public more particularly the members of the local organization that you carried out gave excitement to the general public which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Just after joining the organization, you carried out the above assignment as usual till you arrest. Such act of giving awareness program to the general public more particularly the members of the local organization that you carried out gave excitement to the general public which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 4) That, on 17.12.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. you were arrested by a team of CDO/IW, led by S.I.N. Jatishwor Singh from you house and handed over to the OC/Imphal Police Station with a written report. On the strength of the report OC/IPS registered a regular case under FIR No. 442(12) 2009 IPS under Section 20 UA(P A Act and investigated into. During the course of the investigation of the case, you were arrested on 18.12.2009 and remanded into police custody till 22.12.2009. 5) That, in view of the tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past as a dangerous hard core of the banned organization namely Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA in short) which aim at establishing a sovereign independent State of Manipur by waging war against the lawfully established Government of India and Manipur holding fire arms, I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a member of the said organization would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of the public order. Hence, the application of normal criminal law against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for. From 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, I have made this order directing that you be detained under NSA, 1980. 6. That, the copies of the following documents which form the basic grounds of your detention are enclosed herewith for your reference: a) Your statement given before the I.O. on 18.12.2009. b) State of S.I.N. Jatishwor Singh of CDO/IW, recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 442 (12) 2009 IPS under Section 20 UA(P) A Act. c) Copy of arrest memo dated 17.12.2009. b) State of S.I.N. Jatishwor Singh of CDO/IW, recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 442 (12) 2009 IPS under Section 20 UA(P) A Act. c) Copy of arrest memo dated 17.12.2009. d) Copy of Manipur local daily 'Poknapham' dated 8.3.99. e) Copy of Notification under No. S.O. 2883(E) dated 13.11.2009. f) Copy of FIR 315(9) 2009 IPS under Section17/20 UA (P) A Act. g) Copy of FIR No. 442 (12) 2009 IPS under Section 20 UA(P)A Act. h) Copy of the Government of Manipur, Home Department's Order No. 17(1)49/80-H(Pt- I)dated 10.11.2009. 7. That, you are hereby informed that you have the right to make representation to the Government of Manipur as well as to the Central Government against the order of detention passed against you and you are hereby afforded the earliest opportunity for making such representation if you wish to do so. The representation is to be sent through Addl. Superintendent of Police Central Jail, Sajiwato the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur in respect of representation to the Government of Manipur and to "The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North Block, New Delhi-110001 in respect of representation to the Central Government and should be submitted within 3(three) weeks from the date of detention. Further, you are informed that you have right to make representation to the detaining authority within 12 (twelve) days from the date of detention or till the order is approved by the State Government whichever is earlier. The Representation is to be sent to the District Magistrate, Imphal West. Representation, if any, would be placed before the Advisory Board within 3(three) weeks time from the date of your detention and such other documents/papers in connection with your detention as the Government is bound under the law to produce before the Board for its consideration. 8. That, you are hereby informed that the Advisory Board may call for such information as it may deem necessary from you and if you desire to be heard hear you in person. You may intimate about it and arrangement may be made to produce you before the Board on the date fixed by it for the purpose. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate Imphal West District. 5. The Petitioner-detenu filed the representation dated 7.1.10 to the Chief Secretary, Govt, of Manipur through the Addl. You may intimate about it and arrangement may be made to produce you before the Board on the date fixed by it for the purpose. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate Imphal West District. 5. The Petitioner-detenu filed the representation dated 7.1.10 to the Chief Secretary, Govt, of Manipur through the Addl. S.P. Jail, Sajiwa, Imphal. The Petitioner-detenu also filed representation dated 7.1.10 against the detention order to the Secretary, Govt, of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Both the representations were rejected after due consideration. Hence the present writ petition. 6. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner-detenu challenges the impugned detention order basing on two grounds-(i) subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for detaining the Petitioner-detenu under the impugned detention order is based on extraneous materials, touching upon the characters of the detenu, wherein serious imputations had been made against the Petitioner-detenu that the Petitioner-detenu had been involved in serious criminal cases and those extraneous materials are not mentioned in the ground of detention, i.e. the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 24.12.09. 7. In support of this ground, it is stated that even though copies of the statement of SI N. Jatishwor Singh, CDO/IW recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR Case No. 442(12)09 IPS under Section 20 UA(A)A Act and also Ejahar of FIR case No. 315(9)09 IPS under Section 17/20 U.A.(P)A Act, were furnished to the petitioner-detenu, the facts mentioned in the statement of SI N. Jatishwor and Ejahar of the FIR No. 315 (9) 09 are not mentioned in the grounds of detention and those facts should have influenced the detaining authority for coming to the subjective satisfaction for detaining the Petitioner-detenu under the NSA. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 51 observed that while discharging constitutional obligation to protect fundamental right of the people, more specifically right to personal liberty, the Court would not be influenced by the nature of the activity of the detenu. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in Clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. 9. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The safeguards enshrined in Clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 22 are required to be jealously watched and enforced by the Court. 9. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Naresh Chandra Ganguli for Shri Ram Prasad Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 1335 (V 46 C 188) had considered in threadbare the rights of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and what are to be informed to the detenu for enabling him to file effective representations. In that case, grounds for detention furnished to the detenu reads as follows: No. 85 Grounds for detention under Clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) To Sri Ram Prasad Das S/o Bepin Behari Das, Of 6, Muralidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power (Act IV of 1950) on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidenced by the particulars given below: 1) That on 13.9.58 you attended a meeting of Eastern Indian Refugee Council held at the Refugee Office at 6 Muralidhar Sen Lane and vilified Prime Minister of India for his allegedly turning a deaf ear to the untold miseries of the refugees and while referring to the recent agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan you vented feelings of violence against the Prime Minister of India by emphasizing that in order to save the refugees and the territories of the Indian Union, Sri Nehru should be murdered, if necessary and so the need of another Nathuram Godse was felt now. 2) That in course of discussion with members of your party on 17.9.58 at 6 Muralidhar Sen Lane you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been called upon the members to build up strong movement against the implementation of Nehru-Noon Pact. You also tried to rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal. You also tried to rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had no sympathy for West Bengal. 3) That on 26.9.58 you attended another meeting of the South Burtolia Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park, where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youth of the country for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enroll themselves for the said purpose. 4) That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9.10.58 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India. Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secy. Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supdt. of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible. You are also informed that under Section 10 of the PD. Act, 1950 (IV of 1950) the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government. Sd/-Illegible. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta 10. The Apex Court clearly held that there is no requirement for recital of details which form the basis of conclusion of fact in para 4 inasmuch as facts mentioned therein are sufficient for the purpose of filing representation. Para 13 of the AIR in Naresh Chandra Ganguli's case (supra) read as follows: 13. The contention raised before the High Court has been repeated before us, that the grounds contained in para 4, are vague and indefinite, not enabling, the person detained to make his representation. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the Petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 9, 1958, with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity, have all been stated as clearly as could be expected. It will appear from the paragraph aforesaid that the Petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on October 9, 1958, with a view to instigating plans against the personal security of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the place, date and purpose of the planned nefarious activity, have all been stated as clearly as could be expected. But it was argued that it was also necessary to state that details of the plan to be hatched in Delhi. There are several answers to this contention. Paragraph 4 has reference to something which was apprehended but lay in the womb of the future. From the nature of the fact that it was not an event which had already happened but what was apprehended to be in the contemplation of the detenu and his associates, if any, no further details of the plan could possibly be disclosed. As was observed in the decision of this Court in 1951 SCR 157 at pp. 184 and 185: ( AIR 1951 SC 157 at p. 164) (supra), vagueness is a relative term. Its meaning must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. What may be said to be vague in one case, may not be so in Anr., and it could not be asserted as a general rule that a ground is necessarily vague if the only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. If the statement of facts is capable of being clearly understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make his presentation, it cannot be said that it is vague. Further, it cannot be denied that particulars of what has taken place, can be more definitely stated than those of events which are yet in the offing. In the very nature of things, the main object of the Act is to prevent persons from doing something which comes within the purview of any one of the Sub-clauses of Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act. 11. Keeping in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases mentioned above, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the ground of detention dated 24.12.09 for deciding the first ground for assailing the impugned detention order. 12. It is clear from the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 24.12.09 (ground of detention) that copies of the statement of SIN. 12. It is clear from the said letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 24.12.09 (ground of detention) that copies of the statement of SIN. Jatishwor Singh, CDO Imphal West, recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR Case No. 442(12)09 IPS under Section 20 U.A.(P)A Act and also the Ejahar for the FIR No. 315(9)09 IPS under Section 17/20U.A.(P)A Act were furnished to the Petitioner-detenu. It is clearly mentioned in para 4 of the ground of detention dated 24.12.09 that on 15.12.09 at 4 P.M. the Petitioner-detenu was arrested by a team of CDO, Imphal West led by SIN. Jatishwor Singh from his house and handed over to the OC Imphal P.S. with written report and on the strength of the said report of regular case under FIR No. 442 (12)09 IPS under Section 20 U.A. (P) A Act was registered and investigated into. 13. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya: AIR 1951 SC 757, in the context of Article 22(5) and preventive detention Act (Act No. 4 of 1950) clearly held that "what must be supplied are the grounds on which the order has been made and nothing else, and also further held that vagueness of the grounds of detention is a relative term and it is to be decided on the basis of the fact of case." In other words, whether there is vagueness in the grounds of detention is to be decided on the basis of the fact of that case., What is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to a detenu is that the Petitioner-detenu should be informed the conclusion of facts which form the grounds of detention and documents which form the grounds of detention. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya's case (supra) held as follows: ...We think that the position will be clarified if it is appreciated in the first instance what are the rights given by Article 22(5). The first part of Article22, Clause (5) gives a right to the detained person to be furnished with "the grounds on which the order has been made" and that has to be done "as soon as may be". The second right given to such person is of being afforded "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". The first part of Article22, Clause (5) gives a right to the detained person to be furnished with "the grounds on which the order has been made" and that has to be done "as soon as may be". The second right given to such person is of being afforded "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". It is obvious that the grounds for making the order as mentioned above, are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. These grounds, therefore, must be in existence when the order is made. By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detained recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which of the three categories of prejudicial acts the suspended activities of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the "grounds" and they must be supplied. No part of such "grounds" can be held back nor can any more "grounds" be added thereto. What must be supplied are the "grounds on which the order has been made" and nothing less. The second right of being afforded "earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order' is not confined to only a physical opportunity by supplying paper and pen only. In order that a representation can be made the person detained must first have knowledge of the grounds on which the authorities conveyed that they were satisfied about the necessity of making the detention order. It is, therefore, clear that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed to be detained person must be sufficient to attain that object. Ordinarily, the "grounds" in the sense of conclusions drawn by the authorities will indicate the kind of prejudicial act the detenu is suspended of being engaged in and that will be sufficient to enable him to make a representation setting out his innocent activities to dispel the suspicion against him. Of course if the detenu is told about the details of facts besides the grounds he will certainly be in a better position to deal with the same. Of course if the detenu is told about the details of facts besides the grounds he will certainly be in a better position to deal with the same. It is significant that the clause does not say that the "grounds" as well as details of facts on which they are based must be furnished or furnished at one time. The law does not prescribe within what time after the grounds are furnished the representation could be made. The time in each case appears deliberately un-provided for expressly, because circumstances vary in each case and make it impossible to fix a particular time for the exercise of each of these two rights. 14. What are to be informed to the detenu for enabling him to file effective representation are the conclusion of facts for coming to the subjective of the detaining authority for detaining the detenu and also the documents which forms the ground of detention. Further, vagueness of the ground of detention is a relative term and it is to be decided on the basis of the fact of the case and it is also fairly well settled that what is guaranteed under the Constitution of India to a detenu is that detenu should be informed the conclusion of fact which forms the ground of detention and the documents which forms grounds of detention. 15. Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned Counsel for the detenu, in support of the first ground, had placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1272 wherein the Apex Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on extraneous materials which are not referred to in the ground of detention for detaining the detenu, shall result the detention order illegal. In that case copy of the confidential letter of the Senior SP of Police, Allahabad dated 31.3.88 was furnished to the detenu and it was one of the documents which forms the ground of detention, but in the ground of detention no averment had been made regarding the said letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police. In this context the Apex Court held that the said letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated 31.3.88 might have influenced the detaining authority in coming to the subjective satisfaction. In this context the Apex Court held that the said letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated 31.3.88 might have influenced the detaining authority in coming to the subjective satisfaction. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a case is to be understood in the light of the fact of that case and also little difference in facts shall cause a great difference in their presidential value. Fact of the present case is diametrically different from that of the Vashisht Narain's case (supra). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vashisht Narain's case (supra) will be of no help to the Petitioner-detenu for challenging the impugned detention order on the said ground (first ground). 16. Regarding the second ground of challenge the detention order, the detaining authority had no application of mind for coming to the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future by normal criminal law as bails are granted in similar cases by the Criminal Court, we have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel spearing for the Petitioner-detenu and also perused the ground of detention dated 24.12.09. No doubt, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on some grounds, the question whether such grounds can give rise to the subjective satisfaction required for making the order is outside the scope of enquiry of the Code: Reference - State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157 . 17. On bare perusal of the ground of detention dated 24.12.09 it is amply clear that there are some grounds and materials for coming to the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail. We may recall the decisions of the Apex Court in Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 676 (para 10 of the SSC p. 679) held that "It was also submitted that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being released on bail. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied. Strong reliance is placed on several decisions of this Court. It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various Courts. The Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the Appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2002) 7 SCC 129 . 18. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.