JUDGMENT T. NK Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ng. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. A. Modhuchandra Singh, learned Addl. GA appearing for the State respondents 1, 2 & 3 as well as Mr. Amerjit N, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent no.4 - Union of India. It is an admitted fact that while the detenu was in custody in connection with some criminal cases, he was placed under detention under the impugned detention order dated 26.4.2011 issued by the Detaining Authority, the District Magistrate, Imphal West. The impugned detention order had also been approved by the State Government vide order dated 5.5.2011 and also confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 13.6.2011 with the fixation of 12(twelve) months as the period of detention. In the impugned detention order dated 26.4.2011, which is quoted here-under: ORDERS Imphal, the 26th April, 2011 No. Cril./NSA/No.42 of 2011: Whereas, a police report has been laid before me that Shri Thokchom Nanao Singh @ Chaoba (34 years), S/o (L) Th. Birjit Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, A/P Langol Housing Complex, Type- II, Mathak, P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, 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 Thokchom Nanao Singh @ Chaoba (34 years), S/o (L) Th. Birjit Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, A/P Langol Housing Complex, Type- II, Mathak, P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order; And whereas, I am satisfied from the Police report that Shri Thokchom Nanao Singh @ Chaoba (34 years), S/o (L) Th. Birjit Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.S. - Imphal, District - Imphal West, A/P Langol Housing Complex, Type-II, Mathak, P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur, who is now in Police custody, is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, and also that an alternative preventive measure is called for. Now, therefore, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No.17(1)/49/80H(Pt-I) dated 07.08.2010 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in Police custody be detained under section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 until further orders. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this twenty-sixth day of April, 2011. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West there is no whisper that the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. To the contra, Mr. A. Modhuchandra Singh, learned Addl. GA appearing for the State respondents by referring to the grounds of detention strenuously contends that there is indications as to the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that the right and liberty of a citizen is the most precious right of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Such vested rights of the citizens cannot be lightly interfered with by issuing the detention order; and the detention order should be issued on a very précised reason. As stated above, neither in the impugned detention order nor in the grounds of detention, there is clear cut indication that the Detaining Authority is fully satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the detenu/petitioner, by relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in (2003) 8 SCC 342 : Union of India -vrs- Paul Manickam & Anr, contended that even though the detenu, who already under custody, could detained under the detention order, the Detaining Authority should have the clear cut satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. Here-in the present case, as stated above, there is no indication in this regard. 2. For the foregoing reasons, we have no alternative but to interfere with the impugned detention order dated 26th April, 2011. Here-in the present case, as stated above, there is no indication in this regard. 2. For the foregoing reasons, we have no alternative but to interfere with the impugned detention order dated 26th April, 2011. Accordingly, the impugned detention order dated 26th April, 2011 and its subsequent approval order dated 5th May, 2011 and confirmation order dated 13th June,2011 are hereby quashed and set aside and the detenu, namely Shri Thokchom Nanao Singh @ Chaoba, S/o (L) Th. Birjit Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai, P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, A/P Langol Housing Complex, Type-II, Mathak, P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal West, Manipur, is set at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case(s). Writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed