JUDGMENT T. NK Singh, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is, (1) to the detention order being No.Cril/NSA/9/2011, Porompat the 16th April, 2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District, Manipur directing the petitioner-detenu to be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, (NSA) 1980; (2) the order of the State Government being No.17(1)66/2011-H dated 26.04.2011 for approving the impugned detention order; and (3) order of the State Government dated 02.06.2011 for confirming the impugned detention order fixing period of detention for twelve months from the date of detention. 2. The only ground for assailing the impugned detention order is that there is non application of mind and also complete absence of materials for coming to the satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future, as a result the impugned detention is vitiated. 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: The petitioner-detenu was picked up on 08.03.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. by a team of District Police, Imphal West in coordination with Aizawl Police from Bongkawn area in Aizawl in connection with FIR Case No.150(12)2008 LLI PS under Section 265/34 IPC and 24(1-B)A Act. Thereafter he was brought back to Imphal on 10.03.2011 after getting transit warrant from the Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl. On production before the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner-detenu was remanded to Police Custody till 22.03.2011. While the petitioner was in Police Custody he was subjected to joint interrogation at Kangla involving personnel of various departments. On 22.03.2011 the learned concerned Magistrate allowed the petitioner-detenu to be arrested formally in connection with FIR No.86(9)2010 NBL PS under Section 365/368/34 IPC and 16 UA (P) A Act and remanded to Police custody till 29.03.2011. 4. On 29.03.2011 the petitioner-detenu was again arrested formally in connection with FIR No.80(7)2010 LLI PS under Section 362/3-7/34 IPC, 25(1-C) Arms Act and 20/16 UA (P) A Act and remanded to Police custody till 02.04.2011. On 16.04.2011, while the petitioner-detenu was in judicial custody, copy of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 was served to him. The grounds of detention as well as copies of the documents which formed the grounds of detention were also furnished to the petitioner-detenu under the letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal East District being No.Cril/NSA/9/2011, Porompat the 19.04.2011. 5. On 16.04.2011, while the petitioner-detenu was in judicial custody, copy of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 was served to him. The grounds of detention as well as copies of the documents which formed the grounds of detention were also furnished to the petitioner-detenu under the letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal East District being No.Cril/NSA/9/2011, Porompat the 19.04.2011. 5. The petitioner-detenu also filed representation dated 22.04.2011 to the Detaining Authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Imphal East District for furnishing better particulars in respect of the allegations/assertions against the petitioner-detenu, the statement of the petitioner-detenu and also for revocation of the detentin order. The said representation dated 22.04.2011 was considered and rejected by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District and rejection order had been intimated to the petitioner-detenu vide letter of the District Magistrate, Imphal East District dated 27.04.2011. The petitioner-detenu also filed representation dated 12.05.2011 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur for revocation of the detention order and also for furnishing copies of the Police report and other documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. In the said representation dated 12.05.2011 it was also stated specifically that because of non furnishing of documents, the petitioner-detenu could not file effective representation against the detention order. The said representation was also rejected by the State Government and informed the rejection of his representation to the petitioner-detenu under the letter of the Additional Secretary, Home, Government of Manipur dated 16.05.2011. 6. As stated above, the impugned detention order had been approved by the State Government vide order dated 16.04.2011 and also confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 02.06.2011. For deciding the only ground for assailing the impugned detention order, approval order and the confirmation order, we have given our anxious considerations to the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 and the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011. In para 4 of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 it is stated that the Detaining Authority was satisfied from the Police report that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail. Para 4 of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 read as follows: And whereas, I am satisfied from the Police report that Shri Konsam Inaocha Singh @ Jack Konsam @ JK (35 years) S/O K.Lokhon of Wangkhei Tokpam Leikai, PS Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future. 7. Para 4 of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011 read as follows: And whereas, I am satisfied from the Police report that Shri Konsam Inaocha Singh @ Jack Konsam @ JK (35 years) S/O K.Lokhon of Wangkhei Tokpam Leikai, PS Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future. 7. The grounds of detention consist of 13 paras. No doubt, in the grounds of detention it is stated that the petitioner-detenu was arrested in connection with number of criminal cases and it is also alleged that the petitioner-detenu is a member of the banned organization "Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP). The petitioner-detenu worked in the finance section of the said organization and extorted money from the general public, Government employee, shop keepers, private forms etc as party fund. But in the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011, even though some allegations and assertions had been made against the petitioner-detenu regarding his involvement in extortion of money and number of criminal cases, no material or reasons had been mentioned for coming to the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future. Portion of the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011 which speaks regarding release of the petitioner-detenu on bail read as follows: 9. That, in view your prejudicial activities in the proximate past, it is very likely that you would continue to act in the same manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in case you are released on bail. Hence, the application of normal criminal laws against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from committing such activities. An effective measure to prevent you from committing further prejudicial activities is immediately called for. Save and except para 9 of the grounds of detention dated 19.04.2011, the Detaining Authority did not even made a whisper about the materials for coming to the satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future; what is stated in the grounds of detention is only hypothesis/presumption that in case the petitioner-detenu is released on bail, petitioner-detenu would continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 8. 8. As early as 1981, the Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs Adam Kasam Bhaya : AIR 1981 SC 2005 held that - "If it is found that the order (detention order) has been based by the Detaining Authority on the material on record, then the Court cannot go further and examine whether the material was adequate or not, which is the function of an Appellate Authority or Court. It can examine the material on record only for the purpose of seeing whether the order of detention has been based on no material." The High Court in writ petition assailing detention order can only examine the material on record for the purpose of deciding if the order of the detention has been based on material. 9. The Apex Court in a case from this Bench (Imphal Bench) in Pebam (N) Mikoi Devi Vs State of Manipur & Ors (2010) 9 SCC 618 held that the Court is entitled to scrutinise the material relied upon by the authority in coming to its conclusion, and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction. Whether the grounds stated in the grounds of detention are sufficient or not to order preventive detention is not within the ambit of the discretion of the Court. Thus subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is implied. Para 26 of the SCC in Pebam (N) Mikoi Devi's case (supra) read as follows: 26. What emerges from these rulings is that, there must be a reasonable basis for the detention order, and there must be materials to support the same. The Court is entitled to scrutinize the material relied upon by the authority in coming to its conclusion, and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction. The subjective satisfaction must be twofold. 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 or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the authority must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from so acting. 10. 10. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. These procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Court and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu. Para 36 and 39 of the SCC in Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government & Anr: (2011) 5 SCC 244 read as follows: 36. It has been held that the history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. (See Kamleshkumar Iswardas Patel v Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 51 vide para 49.) These procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the court and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu. As observed in Rattan Singh v State of Punjab : (1981) 4 SCC 481 ) 4..... May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them, and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set up, it is essential that at lease those safeguards are not denied to the detenus 39. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The stringency and concern of judicial vigilance that is needed was aptly described in the following words in Thomas Pelham Dale case : (1881) 6 QBD 376 (CA): (QBD p.461) Then comes the question upon the habeas corpus. The stringency and concern of judicial vigilance that is needed was aptly described in the following words in Thomas Pelham Dale case : (1881) 6 QBD 376 (CA): (QBD p.461) Then comes the question upon the habeas corpus. It is general rule, which has always been acted upon by the courts of England, that if any person procures the imprisonment of another he must take care to do so by steps, all of which are entirely regular, and that if he fails to follow every step in the process with extreme regularity the court will not allow the imprisonment to continue. 11. The Apex Court in a case from this Bench of the Gauhati High Court, i.e. Nongthombam Ongbi Leima Devi Vs State of Manipur & Ors in Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2012 in clear terms held that there should be cogent materials for coming to the satisfaction that there is likelihood of release of the detenu on bail and only when there are reasons to believe on the materials placed before the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority may come to the satisfaction that there is possibility of his release on bail. The impugned detention order in Nongthombam Ongbi Leima Devi's case (supra) is parimateria with the present impugned order. The relevant portion of the judgment in Nongthombam Ongbi Leima Devi's case (supra) read as follows: From the detention order, it appears that the apprehension of the District Magistrate that in the substantive case the detenue would be released on bail was on the basis of Police Report. The relevant passage in the detention order is as follows: And whereas, I am satisfied with the Police report that Shri Nongthombam Inaobi Meetei @ Lalngamba (41) S/O (L) N.Gouramani Meetei of Kumbi Uchamakhong, P.S.-Kumbi, District-Bishnupur, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future unless provision under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 is applied. Since the detention order refers to the Police Report, we adverted to the Report of the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur dated February 17, 2011. It is a long report spread over several pages and enclosing the history-sheet of the detenue, but so far as the question of bail in the substantive case is concerned, there is one solitary sentence in paragraph 14 of the report to the following effect: 14.... It is a long report spread over several pages and enclosing the history-sheet of the detenue, but so far as the question of bail in the substantive case is concerned, there is one solitary sentence in paragraph 14 of the report to the following effect: 14.... He is likely to be released on bail in a near future. What the Superintendent of Police seems to have done is to mechanically reproduce the words used in the decisions of the Court without assigning any reason for harbouring such a belief, much less, producing any material in its support. Cases in which persons are put under detention while in custody in connection with a substantive criminal case have come before this Court on a number of occasions and this Court has laid down the tests to be satisfied for putting a person under preventive detention in such circumstances. In Union of India V Paul Manickam & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 342 , in paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Court held and observed as follows: 14. So far as this question relating to procedure to be adopted in case the detenue is already in custody is concerned, the matter has been dealt with in several cases. Where detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in Jail under some other laws, the detaining authority should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws has to be clearly indicated. Subsisting custody the detenue by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and decision in this regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or economic stability, etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when detenue is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenue and take that factor into account while making the order. ordinarily, it is not needed when detenue is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenue and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging such prejudicial activities the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenue was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. (See N.Meera Rani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu. ( AIR 1989 SC 2027 ); Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union India, AIR 1990 SC 1196 ). The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India ( AIR 1991 SC 1640 ). The principles were set out as follows. Even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed, (1) If the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) 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 (3) if 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. In the case at hand, the order of detention and grounds of detention show awareness of custody and/or possibility of release on bail. In a more recent decision in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima v State of Manipur & Ors., (2012) 1 Scale 2 , in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court once again reiterated as follows: 13. In the case at hand, the order of detention and grounds of detention show awareness of custody and/or possibility of release on bail. In a more recent decision in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima v State of Manipur & Ors., (2012) 1 Scale 2 , in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court once again reiterated as follows: 13. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to hold that the extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which has before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of Yumnam Somendro being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention. Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except, according to procedure established by law. In the instant case, although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Article 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. It is, thus, clear that the detention order passed in this case does not satisfy the tests laid down by this Court and is plainly violative of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. 12. In the given case, we have minutely examined the detention order, grounds of detention and relevant Government File which is placed before us by the learned Government Advocate and are of the view that there is no material, not to speak of cogent material, for coming to the satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail. 12. In the given case, we have minutely examined the detention order, grounds of detention and relevant Government File which is placed before us by the learned Government Advocate and are of the view that there is no material, not to speak of cogent material, for coming to the satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail. Surprisingly in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority did not even made a whisper regarding reasons for coming to his satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is likely to be released on bail; what he stated in the grounds of detention is his hypothesis and apprehension that in case, petitioner-detenu is released on bail he would continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. What is required for detaining the detenu who is already in custody is that there is material for coming to the satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and normal criminal proceedings would not be sufficient to deal with the prejudicial activities of the detenu. Over and above the requirements mentioned in the Paul Manickam's case (supra) and Rekha's case (supra) are also to be fulfilled for detaining the detenu who is already in custody. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we have no alternative except to set aside the impugned detention order, approval order and the confirmation order. Accordingly, the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2011, approval order dated 26.04.2011 and the confirmation order dated 02.06.2011 are hereby set aside. The petitioner-detenu namely, Shri Konsam Inaocha Singh @ Jack Konsam @ JK, s/o K. Lokhon of Wangkhei Tokpam Leikai, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed