JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. We have heard Mr PH Sanajaoba, 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. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West detaining her son, namely, N Romenkumar Singh under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (the Act for short) purportedly for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was arrested on 6.7.2011 by a team of Commando, Imphal West and detained in their complex. He was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge, Lamphel Police Station on 08.07.2011 whereafter a police case being FIR No. 110(7)2011 SJM LPS under Section 17/20 UA (P) Act & 25(1-C) & (1-B) Arms Act was registered against him. On 9-7-2011, he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, who remanded him to police custody till 16.07.2011. On 16.07.2011, when he was remanded to judicial custody, he was served with the impugned detention order issued by the respondent No. 2. On 19.07.2011, he was served with the grounds of detention prepared by the respondent No. 2, which bears dated 19.07.2011. The impugned detention order was approved by the respondent No. 1 on 25.07.2011. On 26-07-2011, he submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 for revoking the detention order. On 27.08.2011, the detenu was served with the letter dated 27.07.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2 informing him that his representation dated 26.07.2011 had been rejected. On 3-8-2011, he submitted his representation to the respondent No. 1, which was also rejected on 06.08.2011. The detenu then submitted another representation on 03.08.2011 this time addressed to the Chairman Advisory Board, National Security Act. On 06.08.2011, he was served with the letter dated 06.08.2011 informing him that his representation had been rejected being devoid of merit. The respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board confirmed the impugned detention order on 02.09.2011. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the release of her son. 3. On 06.08.2011, he was served with the letter dated 06.08.2011 informing him that his representation had been rejected being devoid of merit. The respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the Advisory Board confirmed the impugned detention order on 02.09.2011. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the release of her son. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr Sanajaoba, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has now confined himself to only one submission, namely, the conclusion of the detaining authority in the impugned detention order that the detenu is likely to be released on bail unless he is preventively detained has no foundation at all and, as such, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He relies on the recent decision of the Apex Court in Yumnam Ogbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2 SCC 176 to buttress his contention. On the other hand, while opposing the the writ petition, Mr RS Reisang, the learned senior State counsel submits that sufficient materials are already indicated in the grounds of detention upon which the detaining authority rightly formed the opinion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail if he is not preventively detained. He, therefore, contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed to prevent grave public mischief. A number of decisions have been cited by the learned State counsel to support his submissions, which need not be referred by us in view of the recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima case (supra). In the impugned detention order, it has been observed by the detaining authority as follows: And whereas I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Ningthoujam Roemnkumar Singh @ Romen (30 yrs) S/o N. Tamar Singh of Leimaram Makha Leikai, P.S. Nambol, District - Bishenpur who is now detained in Police custody, is likely to be released on bail and also likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, and also that an alternative preventive measure is called for. We may as well reproduce paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention below: 4. We may as well reproduce paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention below: 4. That, in view of the tendencies and inclinations in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being a member of the banned organization Kangleipak Coimmunist Party (KCP in short0 Taibangnganba faction, which aims at establishing a sovereign independent State of Manipur by waging war against the lawfully established Government of India and Manipur holding fire arms, and carrying out prejudicial activities such as extortion of money, and transporting arms and ammunition of KCP (Taibangnganba faction), disturbing public order affecting public tranquility, I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a member of the said organization would continue to indulge in the same activities 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 to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, immediately called for. (Italic supplied) 4. Though in the impugned detention order, it was stated by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, there was no such statement in the grounds of detention as revealed from the paragraph extracted above. Be that as it may, the instant case is squarely covered by our decision rendered today in W.P.(Crl) No. 96 of 2011 (Ningthoujam Ningol Romabati Devi v. State of Manipur). We are satisfied that there are no materials, as in WP(Crl) No. 96 of 2011, upon which the detaining authority could form an opinion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail unless he was detained under the Act. In this context, we are reminded of the observation of a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Yumnam Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2 SCC 176 that when the courts thought it fit to release the appellant's husband 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 detention, is not justified. 5. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds. 5. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned detention order dated 15-6-2011 (Annexure-N/1), the order dated 25-7-2011 approving the detention order (Annexure-N/3) and the order dated 2-9-2011 confirming the detention order (Annexrue-N/10) are hereby quashed. Let a writ of habeas corpus issue directing the State respondents to release the detenu forthwith unless he is required in connection with some other case. Petition allowed