Mutum B.K. Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the wife of detenu challenging the order of detention of her husband namely, Shri Okram Romeyo Singh, dated 24.11.2010 issued by the re­spondent No.2 inNo. Cril./NSA/No.120 of 2010 underthe National Security Act, 1980, the approval order dated 01.12.2010 and the confirmation order dated 31.12.2010, on various grounds. 2. Heard Mr. Ph. Dolen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. A. Modhucchandra, learned Government Advo­cate appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 3. 3. Out of several grounds raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument only on the point that there was no cogent materials for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal courts as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. The al­leged subjective satisfaction is a mere Ipse dixit of the detaining authority, and as such the im­pugned detention order, approval order and the confirmation are liable to be quashed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Facts leading to filing the present writ petition are that on 20.11.2010 at about 6:50 p.m. the detenu was arrested by a police team of SDPO Imphal West in connection with FIR No. 396(9) 2010 IPS under Sections 17/20 UA(P) A. Act from his house and remanded to police custody till 25.11.2010. The im­pugned detention order dated 24.11.2010 was passed while the detenu was in police custody and he was served with a copy of the detention order on 25.11.2010 when he was produced before the court. The grounds of detention order dated 27.11.2010 along with its enclosure were furnished to the detenu on 27.11.2010. On 01.12.2010 the detenu submitted two representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively for revocation of the impugned detention order. The detention order was approved by the Government of Manipuron 1.12.2010. The aforesaid rep­resentations of the detenu were rejected be­ing devoid of merit and communicated to the detenu vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010. On 06.12.2010 the detenu submitted another representation to the respondent No. 3 for revocation of the impugned detention order. The detention order was approved by the Government of Manipuron 1.12.2010. The aforesaid rep­resentations of the detenu were rejected be­ing devoid of merit and communicated to the detenu vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010. On 06.12.2010 the detenu submitted another representation to the respondent No. 3 for revocation of the impugned detention order. The said representation was received by the respondent No.3 on 16.12.2010 and rejected on 18.12.2010. The detention of the detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 was subsequently confirmed for a period of 12 months from the date of detention of the detenu vide order dated 31.12.2010 issued by the Government of Manipur. 5. The detenu joined in March, 2007 as a Jamadar of 7th Battalion Manipur Rifles and serving at the Battalion Headquarter, Khabeisoi till his arrest on 20.11.2010. The charges/allegations levelled against the detenu, as reflected in the grounds of detention are that the detenu joined a banned Organization namely, "Peoples Liberation Army" (PLA in short) in the middle part of 2010 as an overground member through one, Km. Usham Kanoon Devi @ Ibemcha @ Subadani, S/S Lt. of PLA and worked un­der her command. Many members of PLA took shelter every now and then in the house of the detenu and also conducted organiza­tional meetings/works of the party. The detenu informed the PLA leaders about the move­ment of security forces and contingency plan to nab the underground elements in Imphal area particularly, Singjamei, Thongju, Naorem Leikai etc. from time to time. The above ac­tivities of the detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The detenu acted like a black-sheep in the Manipur Police Department and just like a serpent beneath the carpet. 6. The detaining authority having consid­ered the alleged activities of the detenu as prejudicial to the maintenance of public or­der and believing that the detenu, after having availed of bail facilities, would continue to work as an overground member of PLA, the impugned detention order was passed in or­der to prevent him from commission offur­ther prejudicial activities. 6. The detaining authority having consid­ered the alleged activities of the detenu as prejudicial to the maintenance of public or­der and believing that the detenu, after having availed of bail facilities, would continue to work as an overground member of PLA, the impugned detention order was passed in or­der to prevent him from commission offur­ther prejudicial activities. The order of de­tention dated 24.11.2010 are reproduced hereinbelow for easy reference: "No. Cril/NSA/No.120 of 120: Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Okram Romeyo Sing (31 yrs) S/O (L) O. Damu Singh of Thongju Part-II, near Seva Club, P.S Singjamei, District-Imphal East, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; Whereas, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the mainte­nance of public order under Section 3(2) of Na­tional Security Act, 1980; Whereas, it is considered necessary to de­tain Shri Okram Romeyo Singh(31 yrs) S/O (L) O. Damu Singh of Thongju Part-II, near Seca Club P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal East. Manipur with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Okram Romeyo Singh (31 yrs) S/O (L) O. Damu Singh of Thongju Part-II, near Seva Club, P.S Singjamei, District -Imphal East, Manipur who is now in Police custody, 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. Now, therefore, J.K. Radhakumar Singh, Dis­trict Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur in exer­cise of the powers conferred under Sub-Sec-tion-3 of Section-3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H (Pt.-I) dated 15.11.2010 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in Police custody be detained under Sec­tion 3(2) of National Security, 1980 until further orders. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this twentieth fourth day of November, 2010." 7. For easy reference, the relevant portions of the grounds of detention and the list of the documents which formed the basis grounds of detention are also reproduced hereinbelow: "1. That, you were appointed as a Jamadar of 7 Bn. M.R in the month of March, 2007. For easy reference, the relevant portions of the grounds of detention and the list of the documents which formed the basis grounds of detention are also reproduced hereinbelow: "1. That, you were appointed as a Jamadar of 7 Bn. M.R in the month of March, 2007. There­after, you underwent basic training at NEPA, Shillong and the training course concluded in the month of January, 2008. Your J.C number is 611. After completion of the basic training you were posted at the Bn. Head Quarter located at Khabeisoi till March, 2008. From April, 2008 to May, 2008 you were posted at the Moreh Hos­pital as a Section Commander. From June, 2008 to March, 2009 you were posted at the Bn. H/Q, Khabeisoi. Again since April, 2009 to June, 2009 you were posted at the Moreh Hospital and since July, 2009 till date you have been posted at the Bn. H/Q, Khabeisoi. 2. That, you came to know Km. Usham Kanoon Devi @ Ibemcha @ Subadani (38 yrs) of Wabagai Keirak Wang Leikai since the last II 8 years as she frequently visited your house. Later you came to know she is S/S LT. of PLA. Your service was utilized by Km. U. Ibemcha Devi as courier among PLA members who were operating in Imphal Districts since the early part of 2010 when you were at home. Later you joined the banned organization namely- Peoples Lib­eration Army(PLA) in short) in the middle part of 2010 as an overground member through Km. Usham Kanoon Devi @ Ibemcha @ Subadani, S/S Lt. of PLA organization. The Revolutionary Peoples Front (RPF in short) is its political wing. The above avowed aim and objective of the banned organization........................................... 3. That, after joining the banned organiza­tion, you worked as an overground member under the command of U. Ibemcha Devi @ Kanoon. Thereafter, you came to know a num­ber of PLA members including Km. R.K. Rina Devi @ Ningol @ Tombi (43 yrs) of Sagolband Mabudhou Mantri Leikai, S/S Lt. and Secy. Women wing, PLA and Ngangbam Onil Singh @ Omal @ Boy @ Toni @ Anthoni @ Mani of Chingamathak Nameirakpam Leikai, S/S Capt. of PLA. Members of PLA including the above noted leaders visited your house and took shel­ter every now and then. and Secy. Women wing, PLA and Ngangbam Onil Singh @ Omal @ Boy @ Toni @ Anthoni @ Mani of Chingamathak Nameirakpam Leikai, S/S Capt. of PLA. Members of PLA including the above noted leaders visited your house and took shel­ter every now and then. Organizational meeting was conducted at your youse in your presence regarding the celebration of the 32nd Raising Day of RPF/PLA on 25.9.2010 and discueed in length about the celebration of the Raising Day of PLA by contacting local organization, Meirapiabis and other frontal organization of PLA. R.K. Rina Devi, U/ Ibemcha Devi and Ng. Oman Singh took shelter in your house and carried out organizational works for the celebra­tion of Raising Day of PLA. You contacted sec­retaries of different clubs, organizations, Meirapaibis located at Thongju area and gave money for the celebration of Raising Day of PLA on 25.9.2010. Over and above, you informed the PLA leaders about the movement of secu­rity forces and contingency plan to nab the underground elements at Imphal area particu­larly Singjamei, Thongju, Naorem Leikai etc. from time to time. You had full knowledge that working for the banned organization inspite of being a responsible officer of the law enforcing agency and giving shelter to the members of the banned organization at your own house is prejudicial to the security of the state and main­tenance of public order. You are like a black sheep in the Manipur Police Deptt. And just like a serpent beneath the carpet. You contin­ued similar task till you arrest. 4. That, on 20.11.2010 at about 6:50 p.m. you were arrested in connection with FIR No.396(9) 2010 IPS u/s 17/20 UA(P) A. Act from your house by a police team of SDPO Imphal West. You were remanded to Police custody till 25.11.2010. 5. And just like a serpent beneath the carpet. You contin­ued similar task till you arrest. 4. That, on 20.11.2010 at about 6:50 p.m. you were arrested in connection with FIR No.396(9) 2010 IPS u/s 17/20 UA(P) A. Act from your house by a police team of SDPO Imphal West. You were remanded to Police custody till 25.11.2010. 5. That, in view of the tendencies and incli­nations reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past as an overground member 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 inspite of being a re­sponsible officer of the law enforcing agency, would continue working as an overground mem­ber of PLA, which are prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order. Hence, the application of normal criminal law against you will not at all be effective 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 for your reference:- a) Your statement given before the I.O on21.11.2010. b) State of S.I.M. Goberdhon Singh of CDO/Imphal West, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C in connection FIRNo.396(9)2010 IPS u/s 177 20UA(P)A. Act. c) Copy of Arrest Memo dated 20.11.2010. d) Copy of local daily "Poknapharn" dated 8.3.99 e) Copy of Notification under No. S.O 2883 (E) dated 13.11.2009. f) Copy offIR No. 396(9) 2010 IPS u/s 17/20UA(P)A.Act. g) Copy of the Government of Manipur, Home Departments' Order No. 17(1y49/90-H(Pt-I)dated 15.11.2010." 8. Before going into the merit of the case, it would be profitable to highlight the term "preventive detention". In Union of India Vs. Paul Manikham: (2003) 8 SCC 342 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. In Union of India Vs. Paul Manikham: (2003) 8 SCC 342 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not par­allel proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the execu­tive is convinced on the materials available and placed before it that such detention is nec­essary in order to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by law. The ac­tion of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, the matter has nec­essarily to be left to the discretion of the ex­ecutive authorities. The preventive detention is also described as a "jurisdiction of suspi­cion" by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande: (2008) 3 SCC 613 . 9. From the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is quiet clear that the preventive detention is a precautionary mea­sure to prevent a person from indulging in any prejudicial activities and not punitive in na­ture. It is also well settled proposition of law that for passing an order of detention under the preventive laws, the detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be de­tained is likely to act in any manner prejudi­cial to the security of the State and mainte­nance of public order and under "the circum­stances, it is necessary to detain such person in order to prevent him from indulging in any prejudicial activities. The satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing a preventive order must be based on objective and rea­sonable basis. In other words, there must be cogent materials for passing the preventive order. If the satisfaction of the detaining au­thority for detaining a person under the pre­ventive laws is based on non-existence, ex­traneous and irrelevant grounds, the deten­tion order is invalid. The subjective satisfac­tion of the detaining authority is the cumula­tive result of all materials placed before him and the grounds of detention as well as in­volvement of the person in different prejudi­cial activities. The subjective satisfac­tion of the detaining authority is the cumula­tive result of all materials placed before him and the grounds of detention as well as in­volvement of the person in different prejudi­cial activities. However, no set standards have been laid down under the provisions of Na­tional Security Act, 1980 for arriving at such subjective satisfaction of the detaining author­ity but such subjective satisfaction should not be a mere Ipse dixit of the detaining author­ity. The preventive order passed basing on cogent and reasonable basis is not to be in­terfered with normally by the court. 10. In Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of In­dia :AIR 1991 SCC 1640, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed (i) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in cus­tody; (ii) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him; (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities, and (iii) it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard the order would be valid. The ratio laid down in Kamarunnissa (supra) still holds the field. Thus, the detaining authority must be satisfied the existence of the above condi­tions before passing any detention order against the person who is already in custody, failing which the detention order would be vitiated. 11. On a bare perusal of the above quoted order of detention and the grounds of deten­tion, it is quiet clear that the detaining author­ity was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody at the time of passing the impugned detention order. The detaining au­thority was also satisfied that the detenu, af­ter having availed of bail facilities, would con­tinue to work as an overground member of PLA and that the application of normal crimi­nal law against the detenu would not be ef­fective. The detaining au­thority was also satisfied that the detenu, af­ter having availed of bail facilities, would con­tinue to work as an overground member of PLA and that the application of normal crimi­nal law against the detenu would not be ef­fective. In paragraph No.4 of the order of detention dated 24.11.2010, it is stated that the detaining authority is satisfied from the police report that the detenu, who is now in police custody is 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. . 12. On the other hand, the case of the pe­titioner is that the statement made in para­graph No. 4 of the impugned detention order is a mere Ipse dixit of the detaining authority and that there is/was no material before the detaining authority to justify the above state­ment. The petitioner in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition states that there is no cogent material at all indicating that the detenu has committed any illegal prejudicial activities to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and that on consideration of the documents relied upon by the detaining au­thority as a whole, it is clearly indicates that there is no material at all to show that the detenu has committed illegal offences preju­dicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State. The petitioner denied all the charges levelled against the detenu in para­graph No. 20 of the writ petition. It is also specifically denied the allegations that the detenujoined the banned organization namely, Peoples Liberation Army (PL A in short) in the middle part of 2010 as an overground member through Km. Usham Kanoon Devi etc. It is also stated in paragraph Nos. 10 and 28 (O) of the petition that the statement made in paragraph No.4 of the impugned detention order 24.11.2010 is merely a bald statement without any cogent material and that there are absolutely no materials for coming to the con­clusion that there is likely to be released the detenu on bail in the near future and he would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 13. The respondent No.2 (Detaining Au­thority) in reply to the above allegations stated in paragraph Nos. 13. The respondent No.2 (Detaining Au­thority) in reply to the above allegations stated in paragraph Nos. 3 and 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition that it is likely that the detenu would be released on bail as was done in such cases by the normal criminal courts. The de­tention order was, therefore, passed as a pre­ventive measure. 14. That, in view of the sole point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the pe­titioner at the time of hearing, we are not ex­amining as to whether the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the mainte­nance of public order and he would indulge in prejudicial activities after being released on bail, are based on cogent and reasonable materials or not. As stated in the foregoing para­graph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his argument for assail­ing the impugned detention order 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 in the near future by the normal crimi­nal courts as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. Mr. A. Modhuchandra, the learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the detaining authority was satisfied from the materials placed before him that the detenu would be released on bail as was done in such cases by the normal crimi­nal courts. 15. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the sole question which falls for consideration is whether there are reliable, reasonable and cogent materials before the detaining author­ity to justify his conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the near future as bails are normally granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 16. We are very much conscious of our limitation in examining the materials on the basis of which the detaining authority formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the de­tention order. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the court has no jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency or in­adequacy of the materials which formed the subjective satisfaction of the detaining author­ity. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the court has no jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency or in­adequacy of the materials which formed the subjective satisfaction of the detaining author­ity. However, there is no bar in examining the materials relied upon by the detaining author­ity in order to ascertain whether the subjec­tive satisfaction of the detaining authority is on objective basis or on reasonable/cogent materials or not. 17. Thus, we have carefully gone through the impugned detention order, grounds of detention furnished to the detenu along with the materials which formed the grounds of de­tention, pleadings of the petitioner as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in order to satisfy ourselves whether the al­leged satisfaction of the detaining authority mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the im­pugned detention order is based on cogent materials or not. Except the statement made in paragraph No.4 of the impugned detention order, we do not find any materials either in the grounds of detention or on the materials which formed the grounds of detention to jus­tify the conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal courts as bails were granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. No details of any simi­lar case in which bail was granted by the nor­mal criminal courts has been mentioned ei­ther in the impugned detention order or in the grounds of detention. In the absence of any supporting materials on record, we are of the considered view that the statement made in paragraph No.4 of the impugned detention order is a mere Ipse dixit of the detaining au­thority. 18. The law on this point has been ex­haustively discussed and explained by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu TR. Sec. to Govt. & Anr: 2011 AIR SCW 2262. The relevant portions, on this point are found in paragraph Nos. 7,8,10 and 11 of the Judg­ment 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. The relevant portions, on this point are found in paragraph Nos. 7,8,10 and 11 of the Judg­ment 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. 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." 19. The facts of the case projected in the present writ petition, in our considered view, are squarely cohered by the aforementioned observation rcade by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rekha's-ase (supra). Thus, we have no other alterative except to hold that the impugned detention order dated 24.11.2010 and its subsequent approval order dated 01.12.2010 and confirmation order dated 31.12.2010 are not sustainable in law. 20. Consequently, the impugned detention order dated 24.11.2010 and the subsequent approval order dated 01.12.2010 and con­firmation order dated 31.12.2010 are hereby quashed. Resultantly, the detenu, namely, Shri Okram Romeyo Singh S/O (L) O. Damu Singh of Thongju Part-II, near Seva Club, P.S Singjamei, District- Imphal East, Manipur, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case(s). 21. This writ petition is allowed. No or­der as to costs.