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 25.7.2011 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 1.8.2011 and also confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 12.9.2011 with the fixation of 12(twelve) months as the period of detention. In the impugned detention order dated 25.7.2011, which is quoted here-under: ORDER Thoubal, the 25th July, 2011 Whereas, the District Police has laid before me that Shri Salam Chandra Singh (21 yrs ) S/o Shri S. Amudon Singh of Heirok Part-I Heitupokpi Maning Leikai, P.S.-Thoubal, District-Thoubal, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Whereas, I Shri R.K. Dinesh Singh, District Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur, am satisfied that his activities as reported by the police are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order (under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980). Were as, Shri Salam Chandra Singh (21 yrs) is now in Police Custody. Whereas, in view of his activities in the proximate past, there are reasons to understand that he would continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order if he is released on bail. And whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Shri Salam Chandra Singh (21 yrs) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Now, therefore, I, Shri R.K. Dinesh Singh, District Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Sub-section 2 of Section 3 read with section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Govt. of Manipur, Home Department Notification No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 9.5.2011 make this order that the above named person be detained until further order. Now, therefore, I, Shri R.K. Dinesh Singh, District Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Sub-section 2 of Section 3 read with section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Govt. of Manipur, Home Department Notification No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 9.5.2011 make this order that the above named person be detained until further order. Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 25th day of July,2011. Sd/- (R.K. Dinesh Singh) District Magistrate, Thoubal 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 precised 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 be 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 25th July, 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 25th July, 2011. Accordingly, the impugned detention order dated 25th July, 2011 and its subsequent approval order dated 1st August, 2011 and confirmation order dated 12th September,2011 are hereby quashed and set aside and the detenu, namely Shri Salam Chandra Singh, S/o Shri S. Amudon Singh of Heirok Part-I Heituppokpi Maning Leikai, P.S.-Thoubal, District-Thoubal, 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