JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. We have heard Mr. H Komol, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. RS Reisang, the learned senior GA, appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, the learned CGSC, appearing for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.04.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2 detaining the detenu, namely, Khumbongmayum Ibomcha @ Lamphel Singh, under Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (the Act for short) for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu was earlier arrested in connection with the following cases : FIR No. 47(5) 1994 LLI PS, U/s 121-A IPC, 13 UA(P) Act, FIR No. 64(7)1995 YPK PS U/s 121-A/307 IPC, 25(1-B) Arms Act and 13 UA(P) Act, FIR No. 9(3)1999 Moreh PS U/s 121-A IPC, 10/13 UA(P) Act and FIR No. 29(3)1999 LLI PS U/s 121-A IPC 10/13 UA(P) Act and 25(1-B) Arms Act. After about 10 years, he was again arrested on 2-3-2011 in connection with Paltan P.S. Case No. 142 of 2011 U/s 120-B/121-A read with 16/13/17/20 UA(P) Act and was formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 60(4)2011 LLI PS U/s 20 UA(P) Act and FIR No. 105(9) 2010 LLI PS U/s 20 UA(P) Act, 25(1-B) Arms Act and lastly FIR No. 26(2)2006 IPS U/s 307/326/34 IPC and 25(1-B) Arms Act and 20 UA(P) Act. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 5-4- 2011. After about ten years also, he was again arrested on 02.03.2011 in connection with FIR No. 142/2011 under Section 120(B)/121-121-A read with 16(13), 17/18/20 UA(P) Arms Act under Paltan Bazar Police Station. He was formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 60(4) 2011 Lamlai PS under Section 20 UA(P) Arms Act and FIR No. 105(9) 2010 Lamlai PS under Section 20 UA(P) Arms Act and lastly FIR No. 26(2)2006 IPC under Section 307/326/34 IPC & 25(1-B) Arms Act. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 05.04.2011. 3. While he was in judicial custody, the impugned detention order was issued on 7-4-2011. The grounds of detention order were furnished to the detenu on 11.04.2011. The respondent No. 1 approved the detention order on 18.04.2011. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 05.04.2011. 3. While he was in judicial custody, the impugned detention order was issued on 7-4-2011. The grounds of detention order were furnished to the detenu on 11.04.2011. The respondent No. 1 approved the detention order on 18.04.2011. The detention order was subsequently confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on 21.05.2011. In the meantime, the detenu had submitted two separate representations addressed to the respondents No. 1 and 3. The respondent No. 1 rejected the representation on 29.04.2011, while the respondent No. 3 rejected the same representation on 16.05.2011. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is now filing this writ petition for the release of her husband. 4. It is submitted by Mr. H. Komol, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no material on record upon which the detaining authority could validly form an opinion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail unless he was preventively detained under the Act. According to the learned counsel, this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by us today in WP(Crl) No. 96 of 2011. This submission cannot be disputed by the learned State counsel. In the impugned detention order, it was stated by the detaining authority that "[A]nd whereas I am satisfied from the Police report that Shri Khumbongmayum Ibomcha Sing @ Lamphel @ Tony WP(Crl)107 of 2011 Page 4 of 5 @ Luwangshu @ Ranjan @ Lalupak @ Apanba @ Boy @ Ananda (39 years) S/o Late Kh. Tompapu Singh of NBongada Awang Leikai, P.S. Lamlai, Dist-Imphal East, Manipur is likely to be released on bail in the near future". However, there is no such statement in the grounds of detention. All that the detaining authority said in the grounds of detention is that "in view of your prejudicial activities in the proximate past it can be reasonably presumed that you would be continuing 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. 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." Reading the two passages in juxtaposition, it becomes clear that there are no materials before the detaining authority to come to the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur (2012) 2 SCC 176 , observed that when the courts thought it fit to release the appellant's husbnand on bail in connection with the cases in which he had been arrested, the mere apprehension that he was likely to be released on bail as a ground of his detention, is not justified. In our considered view, the instant case is covered on all four by our decision rendered today in WP(Crl) No. 96 of 2011 (Ningthoujam Ningol Romabati Devi v. State of Manipur). Consequently, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure A-1), the order dated 18.04.2011 approving the detention order Annexure-A/3) and the order dated 21.05.2011 confirming the impugned detention order (Annexure A-4) are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are, accordingly, directed to release forthwith the detenu from detention unless he is required to be arrested in some other case or cases. Petition allowed