JUDGMENT Mutum B. K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. S Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent Nonunion of India 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness/legality of the detention order dated 04.09.2010 passed in Cril.NSA/No.89 of 2010 by the District Magistrate, Imphal West (Respondent no. 1) detaining the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short KSA'), approval order dated 14.09.2010 and confirmation order dated 22.10.2010. 3. Sufficient facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that on 19.08.2010 the petitioner was arrested by a team of Assam Police from Guwahati in connection with Case No.159/10 under section 121/121A/122/468 read with section 10/13 UA(P) Act of Noonmati P.S., Guwahati. On 25.08.2010 at about 5.45 PM, the petitioner was arrested by a Police team of Imphal P.S. from the Central Jail, Guwahati, Assam on the strength of production of warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West in connection with FIR Case No.10(1)2008 Sekmai P.S. u/s 124-A IPC and brought back to Imphal on 27.08.2010 and remanded to Police custody till 6.9.2010. On 04.09.2010, before the expiry of the remanded period, the impugned detention order was passed and served a copy of it to the petitioner on 7.9.2010 while he was in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. On 9.9.2010, the petitioner was served with a copy of the grounds of detention. 3(a). On 14.09.2010, the petitioner made a representation to the District Magistrate, Imphal West for revocation of the impugned detention order on various grounds but the same was rejected on 15.09.2010. In the meanwhile, the impugned detention order was approved vide order dated 14.09.2010 issued by the Govt. of Manipur. On 23.10.2010, the petitioner made another representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for revocation of the impugned detention order but the same was also rejected on 25.10.2010. The detention of the petitioner under the NS A was confirmed vide order dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Government of Manipur. Thus, the petitioner is still languishing in jail. 4. On 23.10.2010, the petitioner made another representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for revocation of the impugned detention order but the same was also rejected on 25.10.2010. The detention of the petitioner under the NS A was confirmed vide order dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Government of Manipur. Thus, the petitioner is still languishing in jail. 4. On perusal of the impugned detention order as well as the grounds of detention, it appears that the impugned detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority purportedly on his satisfaction from the police report placed before him that the petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. Thus, the Detaining Authority felt it necessary to detain the petitioner under the NS A in order to prevent him from further commission of prejudicial activities. 5. The prejudicial activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as projected in the grounds of detention were that the petitioner joined a banned organization, namely, United National Liberation Front(UNLF), in January, 1989, and he received basic military training at Chumnu, Upper Burma from March to May, 1989. In December, 1989 the petitioner along with 40 UNLF members went to K.I.A. H.Q. In May 1993 the petitioner came back to Manipur and carried out many prejudicial activities for which he was arrested by the Police/Security Forces and detained twice under the NS A. The petitioner was released on bail on 2.8.1997 by the Court after the expiry of the period of detention. However, the petitioner again started working as a member of the UNLF organization since November, 1997 and promoted directly to the rank of S/S Sgt. Maj. in February, 1998. The petitioner worked in Imphal area as District Secretary In-charge of UNLF and again promoted to the rank of S/S Lieutenant. In August, 2001, the petitioner went to GHQ of UNLF located at Tamu, Myanmar for dealing with the organizational works. The petitioner was further promoted to the rank of Captain in November, 2004 and stayed at different camps of UNLF located in Myanmar. In February, 2007, the petitioner was given promotion to the rank of S/S Major. In August, 2001, the petitioner went to GHQ of UNLF located at Tamu, Myanmar for dealing with the organizational works. The petitioner was further promoted to the rank of Captain in November, 2004 and stayed at different camps of UNLF located in Myanmar. In February, 2007, the petitioner was given promotion to the rank of S/S Major. Since February, 2008, the petitioner started working as Commanding Officer of 292 Bn. of UNLF located at Lamlen Khunou, Myanmar. In February, 2009, the petitioner was further promoted to the rank of S/S Lt. Coin. and worked as CO. of 292 Bn. of UNLF till August, 2009. The petitioner, thereafter, started working as Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) of UNLF and stationed at Guwahati till his arrest on 19.08.2010. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with FIR Case No. 10(1)2008 Sekmai RS. under Section 124-A IPC while passing the impugned detention order. True, an order of detention under the preventive laws can validly be passed against the person, who is already in custody, if the Detaining Authority is aware of the fact of subsisting custody and satisfied on the basis of the cogent materials placed before him that there is a real possibility of being released the person on bail and such person would in all probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities on releasing him on bail. 7. In the instant case, it appears that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody at the time of passing the impugned order from reading paragraph no.4 of the impugned detention order. It is also stated in paragraph no.4 of the grounds of detention that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioner, after availing of bail facilities, being an important top ranking member, would carry out prejudicial organizational works with the other members under his command. The Detaining Authority has also stated in paragraph no.4 of the impugned detention order that he was satisfied from the police report that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 8. The Detaining Authority has also stated in paragraph no.4 of the impugned detention order that he was satisfied from the police report that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 8. The petitioner challenged the impugned detention order alleging that there was no material for arriving to the conclusion that the petitioner acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the petitioner was likely to be released on bail by the normal criminal court. Whatever the allegations made against the petitioner in paragraph no. 2 of the grounds of detention are in verbatim reproduction of the statement of the petitioner alleged to have been recorded under 161 Cr.PC by the Police in connection with FIR Case No. 10(1)2008 Sekmai PS. Such statement cannot be the sole basis for passing the impugned detention order in view of the decision of the Apex Court. The statement of the Detaining Authority on the point of likelihood of being released the petitioner on bail as bails are normally granted in similar cases by the criminal courts is a mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. No particulars of any bail order passed by the criminal court in similar cases has been given either in the grounds of detention or the impugned detention order. The grounds of detention does not indicate as to which activities is directly affect to the maintenance of public order. 9. It is well settled position of law that the nature of satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in issuing the detention order under the National Security Act for preventing a detenu from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State, is only a subjective satisfaction but such subjective satisfaction should not be based on non-existent or extraneous and irrelevant grounds. In other words, there must be reasonable basis and materials for passing the detention order and that the detention order passed basing on an objective basis is not to be interfered with normally by the Court. 10. In other words, there must be reasonable basis and materials for passing the detention order and that the detention order passed basing on an objective basis is not to be interfered with normally by the Court. 10. Out of several grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition for assailing the impugned detention order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, confined his argument only on the ground that there was no material before the Detaining Authority for arriving at his satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and that there was also no material to show that in similar cases bails were granted by the criminal courts. The learned counsel appearing of the petitioner, in support of his arguments has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of T.N. TR. Sec. to Government & Anr. AIR 2011 SCW 2262. 11. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned State counsel, controverting to the above submissions submits that there is no set standards laid down by the NS A for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority for passing the impugned detention order. The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is the cumulative result of all the grounds of detention involvement of the detenu in different prejudicial activities. Such subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, in the given case, arrived at for detaining the petitioner under the NS A should not be interfered with as the petitioner had indulged in many prejudicial activities as stated in the grounds of detention. 12. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, impugned detention order and the grounds of detention along with the materials on the above point. In paragraph nos. 16 & 23 (d) of the writ petition, the petitioner specifically disputed the allegation that the detenu was likely to be released on bail as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. The Detaining Authority (respondent no. 1) stated in paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition that very often similarly situated persons involved in a number of criminal cases were released on bail by the concerned courts before the statutory period. The Detaining Authority (respondent no. 1) stated in paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition that very often similarly situated persons involved in a number of criminal cases were released on bail by the concerned courts before the statutory period. There was a possibility of likelihood of the detenu being released on bail if bail application was filed before the statutory period was expired and that there was every possibility of the detenu continuing in prejudicial activities if he was released on bail. The respondent no. 1 had also mentioned that one lady arrested on 8.4.2010 in connection with FIR Case No.135(4)2010 IPS U/S 19/39 UAP Act was released on bail by the court on 14.4.2010. It may be mentioned that no such particulars of releasing the said lady on bail has been indicated either in the grounds of detention or in the impugned detention order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR Case No.10(1)2008 Sekmai PS u/s 124-A IPC, which was registered against the Meira Paibies (a civil women organization) of Sekmai Maharabi areas and MPLF members for observing general strike on 26.1.2008 by shouting slogans and using placards against the Indian Constitution. In paragraph no.2 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner left Manipur in August, 2001 and stayed at different places of Myanmar till August, 2009 and thereafter stationed at Guwahati since September, 2009 till his arrest on 19.08.2010. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he, while staying in Myanmar, instigated the Meira Paibis of Sekmai Maharabi areas and other MPLF members to carry out any prejudicial activities, which may affect the maintenance of public order of the State of Manipur. In the absence of such allegations, the statement of alleged involvement of the petitioner in connection with the above FIR case and commission of prejudicial activities in 2008 are next to impossible. 13. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the sole question which falls for consideration is whether there are reliable/cogent materials before the Detaining Authority to justify his conclusion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future as bails, in similar cases, are normally granted by the criminal court. 13. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the sole question which falls for consideration is whether there are reliable/cogent materials before the Detaining Authority to justify his conclusion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future as bails, in similar cases, are normally granted by the criminal court. The law on this question has been extensively discussed and explained by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of T.N. TR. Sec. to Government & Anr. AIR 2011 SCW 2262, the relevant portions are found in paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 which are reproduced hereinbelow: 7. A perusal of the above statement in para 4 of the grounds of detention shows that no details have been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the concerned court. Neither the date of the alleged bail orders has been mentioned therein, nor the bail application number, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of the co-accused on the same case, nor whether the bail orders were passed in respect of other co-accused in cases on the same footing as the case of the accused. All that has been stated in the grounds of detention is that "in similar cases bails were granted by the courts". In our opinion, in the absence of details this statement is mere ipse dixit, and cannot be relied upon. 8. In our opinion, this itself is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, has relied on the judgments of this Court in A. Geetha Vs. State of T.N. and Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 603 ; and Ibrahim Nazeer Vs. State of T.N. and Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 64 , wherein it has been held that even if no bail application of the petitioner is pending but if in similar cases bail has been granted, then this is good ground for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass the detention order. 11. State of T.N. and Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 64 , wherein it has been held that even if no bail application of the petitioner is pending but if in similar cases bail has been granted, then this is good ground for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass the detention order. 11. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored. 14. On perusal of the impugned detention order, grounds of detention and materials on which the Detaining Authority formed the grounds of detention, we do not find any material either in the impugned detention order or the grounds of detention to justify the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. The Detaining Authority has completely failed to mention any material to show that bails were granted in similar cases. 15. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the alleged satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future as bails are granted normally in similar cases by the criminal courts is an ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. 16. 15. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the alleged satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in the near future as bails are granted normally in similar cases by the criminal courts is an ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. 16. The facts of the case projected in the writ petition, in our considered view, are squarely covered by the aforementioned observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rekha's case (supra). Thus, we have no other alternative except to hold that the impugned detention order dated 04.09.2010 and its subsequent approval and confirmation orders are not sustainable in law. 17. Consequently, the impugned detention order dated 04.09.2010 and the subsequent approval and confirmation orders are hereby quashed. Resultantly, the petitioner namely, Shri Khwairakpam Jeeten Singh @ Khomba @ Dene S/o Kh. Sanajaoba Singh of Awang Sekmai Makha Leikai, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case (s). 18. This writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.