P.K. Musahary, J.:— Heard Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nepoleon learned Addl. Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner being the detenu, has filed this petition challenging the order of detention of the District Magistrate and the orders of approval and confirmation accorded by the Government. The petitioner was arrested on 9.1.12 in connection with FIR No. 7(1)2012 IGB P.S. under Section 17/19/20 UA(P) Act read with Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He was produced before the concerned Magistrate and remanded to police custody till 17.1.12. During police custody, the District Magistrate issued the impugned detention order on 17.1.12. The grounds of detention along with the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner. The detention order was approved by the Govt. on 24.1.12. The petitioner filed a representation addressed to the District Magistrate, Imphal East, Manipur on 31.1.2012 and the same was rejected by him on 1.2.2012. Accordingly, the Government confirmed the detention order on 7.3.2012. 3. Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while furnishing the grounds of detention, the District Magistrate furnished copy of the FIR of the aforementioned case along with other documents on the basis of which the impugned detention order was passed. He submits that in the FIR, as many as 10 persons have been named but the present petitioner has not been named as accused person. Referring to the report dated 6.1.2012 submitted by the Inspector of Commando, Imphal East District, Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not been implicated in the aforesaid case. The documents furnished to the petitioner also do not implicate the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR case. He further submits that the respondent authorities having not been able to establish the nexus of the petitioner with the above FIR case, the impugned detention order is illegal and liable to be set aside inasmuch as the impugned detention order was passed by the District magistrate mechanically without application of mind. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent authorities although enough opportunities were provided. However, Mr. Nepoleon, learned Govt. Advocate, has produced the relevant file/records of the Government in connection with the aforesaid detenu's case. On verification of the record, the learned Govt. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent authorities although enough opportunities were provided. However, Mr. Nepoleon, learned Govt. Advocate, has produced the relevant file/records of the Government in connection with the aforesaid detenu's case. On verification of the record, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that although the petitioner has not been implicated in the FIR and the report of the Inspector, Commando, Imphal East, history sheet discloses involvement of the petitioner in various crimes including above FIR case. He submits that the history sheet of the detenu prepared by the S.P, Imphal East District and the statement of the detenu during interrogation clearly establish the petitioner's link with various prejudicial activities including supply of explosive materials to the banned organization. 5. In reply to the submission of the learned Govt. Advocate, it is submitted by Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the history sheet and the statement of the detenu recorded during interrogation on which the detaining authority relied upon, were not furnished to the detenu and as such the documents can not be the basis for passing the detention order. 6. I have carefully gone through the records produced by the learned Govt. Advocate. I find that copy of the history sheet was not supplied to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was kept in darkness about the contents and allegations brought against him. The history sheet was prepared by the Superintendent of Police but the basic materials were collected by the Inspector concerned during enquiry. The detenu's statement is found in the record and the copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. 7. I have also perused the statement of the complainant Inspector. The Inspector concerned, in no manner, implicated the present petitioner in the aforesaid FIR case. This being the factual position, it is quite unnatural and unacceptable that the history sheet prepared by the S.P could record the involvement of the present petitioner. The Govt. record does not contain the statements of witnesses recorded by the officer concerned during interrogation. The detaining authority, is, therefore, not in a position to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was connected with the abovementioned FIR case. I do not find any substantial material in the record against the petitioner. 8. The Govt. record does not contain the statements of witnesses recorded by the officer concerned during interrogation. The detaining authority, is, therefore, not in a position to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was connected with the abovementioned FIR case. I do not find any substantial material in the record against the petitioner. 8. From the extract of interrogation statement of the detenu, a copy of which was furnished to him along with the grounds of detention, it appears that the detenu joined the banned organization namely, Peoples' Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) as a member in the month of November, 2011 only and after joining the organization, he started to work for the said organization. There is a narration how the detenu was working for the organization. Relevant portions are quoted hereunder: "After joining the organization, I started to work under the command of Shri Aheiba Angom @ N.Premkumar Singh in Imphal areas. Thereafter I came to know Shri H.Chitaljit Singh @ Boy through Shri Aheiba Angom N. Premkumar Singh. Thereafter our houses used as contact and sheltering places of PREPAK members. A numbers of camera meeting were also held in our houses. Our service were used in watching the movement of security forces in order to move the PREPAK members freely in Imphal areas. Over and above we were utilized in transportation of arms and ammunition, hand grenades from one place to another for the use of PREPAK member in waging war against the Government. Shri Aheiba Angom @ N. Premkumar Singh handed over 1 (one) AK-47 rifle with 8 (eight) live rounds, 1 (one AK-56 rifle with 10(ten) live rounds 1(one) 9 mm pistol with 4 live rounds and 6 (six) Chinese hand grenades were handed over to us for safe custody. In the middle part of Navember, 2011 Shri Aheiba Angom @ N.Premkumar Singh directed us to handed over the above noted arms and ammunitions and hand grenades to Shri Momon Singh of Langdum Makha Leikai and ABisheswar Singh @ Ibomcha of Langdum Maning Leikhai for the use during the election campaign in favour Shri N.Itomba Singh who would be contested as a independent candidate of 6 Keiro AC of upcoming 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election to be held in the month of January, 2012 and also to hurl the grenade to the house of Congress (1) candidates and its workers. Accordingly, in the middle part of November, 2011, I along with my associates handed over the arms and ammunition, grenades to the above noted person with the instruction. I continued similar task till my arrest" 9. In the above statement, the petitioner never indicated his involvement in the FIR Case 14(2)/2011 WGI P.S. under Section 17/20 UA(P) A Act 2008. 10. The detaining authority was no doubt aware of the fact that the petitioner was in custody and it was believed by him that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. How it happened to be recorded in the detention order is something beyond comprehension on the face of the materials which are not sufficient to substantiate the said claim. The Apex Court in Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1640 , held that even in the case of a person 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 a 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, in all probability wouldindulge in prejudicial activities; (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. 11. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is "real possibility" of release of the present petitioner on bail on the face of serious allegations brought against him. The District Magistratre while being satisfied that the detenu/petitioner indulged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, passed the impugned detention order and at the same time he found that there is likelihood of release of the petitioner on bail. In my considered view, above findings of the District Magistrate run contrary to each other. What is more surprising is that the likelihood of detenu being released on bail is based on the release order of a court in connection with a case where detenu is not connected or involved. These are the clear instances of non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. 12. What is more surprising is that the likelihood of detenu being released on bail is based on the release order of a court in connection with a case where detenu is not connected or involved. These are the clear instances of non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. 12. In view of the above, the court is of the considered view that the detaining authority passed the impugned detention order based on no material without and without application of mind. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I have no other option but to interfere with the impugned detention order dated 17.1.2012, the approval order dated 24.1.2012 and the confirmation order dated 7.3.2012. Accordingly, the impugned detention order dated 17.1.2012, the approval order dated 24.1.2012 and the confirmation order dated 7.3.2012 are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner-detenu, namely Shri Gurum-ayum Nabakumar Sharma @ Inoaba (39 years) be released forthwith if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. Petition stands allowed. _____________