JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. Smti Maibam (ongbi) Indira Devi, the mother of detune Shri Maibam Raju Singh @ Becky has filed this petition challenging the order of detention dated 18.12.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District detaining her son under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act') on the ground that the detent's activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of the public order and though the petitioner is in police custody, he is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the Criminal Court as bails are granted in similar cases by the Criminal Courts. 2. We have heard Mr. L Sashibushan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R S Reisang, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent and Mr. Amarjit, learned Central Govt. Advocate on behalf of the Union of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order of detention dated 18.12.2010 as well as the grounds of detention dated 21.12.2010 has submitted that though the satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on the likelihood of the detune to be released on bail in the near future by normal Criminal Court as bails are granted in similar cases, in the ground of detention there is not even a whisper that any bail application was filed by the detune for his release in connection with the FIR No.256(12)/2010 registered under Section 17/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act as well as granting bail to some other similarly placed persons in similar cases by the normal Criminal Courts, though the particulars of such bail application or the orders of granting bail are required to be furnished to the detune. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 . 4. Further contention of the learned counsel is that though under Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate was required to furnish a report to the State Government along with the grounds of detention, such report was furnished by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 18.12.2010 without the grounds of detention which were furnished to the State Government only on 21.12.2010. According to the learned counsel, the order of detention is also vitiated on that ground. 5. The learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents supporting the order of detention has submitted that in the ground of detention it has been mentioned by the detaining Authority that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in connection with the FIR No.256(12)/2010 and as the act indulged by the detune, for which the aforesaid FIR Case No.256(12)/2010 was registered, is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, the order of detention was passed. According to the learned counsel, even if the detaining Authority is required to furnish the particulars of the bail application filed by the accused of similar cases, since there are other grounds of detention, the order of detention cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground of non-furnishing the required particulars and materials relation to the grant of bail, in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(A) of the Act. 6. The learned Central Govt. counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, adopts the argument advanced by the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. 7. It appears from the order of detention passed by the detaining Authority in exercise of the power conferred under sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the Act that though the detaining Authority's satisfaction of indulging in the activities prejudicial to the State and maintenance of public order by the detune is based on the likelihood of the detune being released on bail in the near future by the normal Criminal Court in FIR Case No. 256(12)/2010, in connection with which the detune was arrested on 10.12.2010 and as bails are granted in similar cases by the normal Criminal Court, on grounds of detention, the detaining Authority has mentioned that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, the detune would continue to work in the banned organization and carry out extortion of money which is prejudicial to the security to the State and maintenance of public order. The satisfaction of passing the order under Section 3(2) of the Act is therefore, based on the alleged availing of bail by the detune in connection with the aforesaid FIR Case No.256(12)/2010. It is not in dispute that the detune is yet to file any application seeking bail in the said case. The satisfaction of passing the order under Section 3(2) of the Act is therefore, based on the alleged availing of bail by the detune in connection with the aforesaid FIR Case No.256(12)/2010. It is not in dispute that the detune is yet to file any application seeking bail in the said case. That apart, though the detaining Authority in the order of detention has mentioned that the bails are granted in similar cases by the Criminal Courts, there is not even a whisper in the ground of detention to that effect, not to speak of furnishing any particulars of the bail application or the order passed granting bail to other similar persons involved in similar cases. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Rekha (Supra) has held that the detaining Authority in the grounds of detention must mention the details of the alleged bail order passed by the Criminal Court in similar cases, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in favor of the co-accused in the same case and whether the case of the accused was on the same footing as that of the detune. It has also been held that in absence of any particulars in the order of detention and furnishing the same to the detune, the order of detention passed under the Act cannot be sustained. 9. The contention of the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents that even if such particulars relating to the grant of bail were not furnished, it would not vitiate the order of detention in view of Section 5(A) of the Act, cannot be sustained as the satisfaction the District Magistrate was based on the likelihood of the detune being released on bail by the normal Criminal Court and also on the ground that other similar persons were granted bail in similar cases, particulars of which were admittedly not furnished either in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention. Non-furnishing of such particulars and materials also prevents the detune from making an effective representation before the Authority, thereby denying the right to make 10. In view of the above, the order of detention and subsequent orders of confirmation and approval are set aside. Non-furnishing of such particulars and materials also prevents the detune from making an effective representation before the Authority, thereby denying the right to make 10. In view of the above, the order of detention and subsequent orders of confirmation and approval are set aside. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the violation of section 3(4) of the Act has not been gone into in the present case as the order of detention has been interfered with on the grounds already discussed above. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The detune shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. No cost. Petition allowed