JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mr. Ph-Dolen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC, appearing for respondent No. 3. This petition has been filed by the wife of detenu challenging the detention order and for release of the detenu forthwith. Briefly stated, petitioner's husband Shri Ngangom Sovet Meitei was arrested on 8.8.2011 by Agartala police in the State of Tripura along with Army personnel and was remanded to police custody till 12.8.2011. He was brought to Imphal, Manipur (home state) on 15.8.2011, produced before the Court of CJM, Imphal East and remanded to police custody till 25.8.2011. He was formally arrested in connection with 11 other police cases and finally remanded to judicial custody on 7.10.2011. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned detention order dated 29.10.2011 against the detenu and served the copy thereof to him on 2.11.2011 alongwith the grounds of detention as required under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to NSA only). The respondent No. 1 approved the impugned detention order vide order dated 9.11.2011 and the same was served on the detenu on 11.11.11. The detenu submitted a representation dated 29.11.2011 to the respondent No. 3 and the Chairman of the State Advisory Board through the petitioner. The said representation was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on 2.12.2011. The rejection order was served upon the detenu on 9.12.2011. On the same day i.e. 9.12.2011, respondent No. 1 confirmed the detention order and served a copy thereof on 15.12.2011. 2. The impugned detention order has been challenged on several counts. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the following: (1) The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to the effect that the detenu was likely to be released on bail is based on no material and the apprehension expressed by the detaining authority in the detention order is without any foundation. (2) The detenu was denied opportunity of being represented by his lawyer or a friend of his choice before sitting of the Advisory Board. (3) The detenu was not afforded with opportunity to produce his witnesses, particularly his wife, to rebut the allegations made against him at the time of consideration of his case by the Advisory Board. 3. (2) The detenu was denied opportunity of being represented by his lawyer or a friend of his choice before sitting of the Advisory Board. (3) The detenu was not afforded with opportunity to produce his witnesses, particularly his wife, to rebut the allegations made against him at the time of consideration of his case by the Advisory Board. 3. It is pointed out that the recital in the impugned order speaks about a police report before the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2) and his satisfaction to the effect that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 3(2) of the NSA and he considered necessary to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Detaining authority was satisfied from the police report that the detenu is likely to be released on bail since accused person Sri Langam Deban (36 years) S/O (L). Manao of Waheng, Khuman Mamang Leikel, a member of KCP (MC) who was arrested on 3.2.2011 in connection with FIR No. 14(1) 2011 WGI-PS under Section 17/20 UA(P) Act, 2008 was released on bail by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal on 10.2.2011 and also since he 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 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the above FIR case, the detenu is neither a co-accused nor implicated in any manner. The accused person in the above FIR case was released on bail by the Court on making application for bail whereas the present detenu is yet to file any bail application for his release and as such the question of his likely release on bail does not arise, more particularly, when he has been shown involved in a series of criminal activities/cases as listed in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention. He further submits that on the face of the projected antecedents and criminal background the detaining authority cannot form the opinion about likely release of the detenu on bail and as such the detaining authority formed the said opinion mechanically without any application of mind and subjective satisfaction based on materials on record. He further submits that on the face of the projected antecedents and criminal background the detaining authority cannot form the opinion about likely release of the detenu on bail and as such the detaining authority formed the said opinion mechanically without any application of mind and subjective satisfaction based on materials on record. In support of this submission the following case laws have been relied upon. (1) Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 ; (2) Yumnam (O) Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 176 ; (3) Pebam Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur reported (2012) 9 SCC 618; (4) Smti Amom Tombi Devi Vs. State of Manipur in WP (Crl) No. 119 of 2012 and (5) Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2012 (yet to be reported). 5. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that detailed police report collected against the detenu was placed before the District Magistrate who had opportunity to look into it and on consideration of the materials on record was personally and subjectively satisfied that the detention of the detenu was absolutely necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He also came to a subjective satisfaction based on record that there is likelihood of release of the detenu on bail taking into consideration that an accused in a similar FIR case obtained an order for release on bail. The impugned detention order according to learned Government Advocate, being passed by the respondent No. 2 on subjective satisfaction backed by police report is not liable to be set aside and quashed. Further he submits that the detenu had chance of securing release on bail and after his release there is every probability of his indulging in prejudicial activities and it was, therefore, felt essential by the District Magistrate to detain the detenu to prevent him from doing so after recording subjective satisfaction on it and in such case the detention order cannot be bad. In this regard, the learned Govt. Advocate relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G Reddeiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Am., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 389 and in Attorney General for India & Ors. Vs. In this regard, the learned Govt. Advocate relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G Reddeiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Am., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 389 and in Attorney General for India & Ors. Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 54 . In regard to detenu's allegation that he was denied opportunity of being represented by his lawyer or a friend, it is submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate that provisions under Section 11 (4) do not entitle any person against whom a detention order has been made to appear by any legal practitioner and/or friend in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board. The demand of the detenu is not permitted under the law and as such there is no question of denial of right of representation. 6. I would first of all deal with the issue of subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in passing the impugned detention order. There is no doubt that the District Magistrate while furnishing the grounds of detention enclosed the copy of written report on the basis of which FIR No. 14(1)2011 WGIRS. case was registered under Section 17/20 UA(P) Act, 2008. In the said Ejahar one Langam Deben Singh has been named as accused person and he has been shown as a member of terrorist organisation engaged for raising fund. The said accused person was arrested in connection with the said case and he filed an application praying for release on bail. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Imphal granted the bail vide order dated 10.2.2011. In the said order the learned Judicial Magistrate observed that: the material evidences cannot be substantiated with the allegation meted against the accused person. Hence, the accused is released on bail by executing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with the like amount of surety. In the above mentioned FIR case the materials were found insufficient to substantiate the allegation against the accused person and the Court was, therefore, bound to grant the bail. In the instant case, it is quite opposite inasmuch as the detaining authority was fed with sufficient materials against the detenu and even if he makes an application for bail there was no likelihood of granting bail by the Court. In the instant case, it is quite opposite inasmuch as the detaining authority was fed with sufficient materials against the detenu and even if he makes an application for bail there was no likelihood of granting bail by the Court. It is not discernible how the District Magistrate could refer himself to the aforesaid FIR case and to the fact of granting bail to the named accused person by the Court. The detaining authority completely turned oblivious that the detenu in the present case was arrested/ detained on charges of more serious offences and it could not be placed on the same footing with the accused persons in the above FIR case who has been implicated in less serious case. The detenu, admittedly, did not make any bail application till the confirmation of the detention order was passed. 7. From the recital of the detention order it is understood that the detaining authority underlined the possibility of release of the detenu on bail. But under the existing law a mere possibility of release on bail is not enough. There should be a real possibility of releasing the detenu on bail. Such real possibility is not reflected either expressly or impliedly in the detention order. It has not also been reflected that the detenu has not moved any bail application. In the decision rendered in Rekha (supra) the Apex Court had occasion to deal with a similar case. For the purpose of better appreciation and clarity, paragraph 27 of the said judgment is quoted below: 27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail though no bail application of his is pending, since most Courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed. 8. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail though no bail application of his is pending, since most Courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed. 8. In Huidrom Konungjao Singh (supra) following the decision in Amritlal & Ors. Vs. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3675 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be cogent materials before the authority passing the detention order that there was likelihood of his release on bail. As discussed earlier, the respondent No. 2 in the present case had no material, not to speak of cogent one for coming to subjective conclusion, except the FIR case referred to in the grounds of detention in which the detenu is not involved or implicated. 9. The cogent material as insisted upon for passing a detention order is not unwarranted and unsustainable under the law. In paragraph 9 of the aforesaid unreported judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Huidrom (supra) it is held that if the detention order is challenged, the detaining authority has to satisfy the Court on the following facts: (1) The authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody. (2) There was reliable material before the said authority on the basis of which he could have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail and further on being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order. (3) In view of the above, the authority felt it necessary to prevent him from indulging in such activities and therefore, the detention order was necessary. 10. In the present case it appears that the respondent No. 2 was aware about the custody of the detenu but he did not have cogent, reliable and sufficient materials to believe that there was real possibility of release of the detenu on bail. The aforesaid settled position of law does not require further discussion on the issue of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order under the NSA. The aforesaid settled position of law does not require further discussion on the issue of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order under the NSA. I do not feel it necessary to deal with the second issue namely denial of providing opportunity of being represented by a lawyer or friend and not affording opportunity to produce his wife as witness before the Advisory Board. 11. In view of the above discussion, finding and also the legal position settling the issue involved, I come to conclusion that the impugned detention order was passed in a casual and mechanical manner without application of mind and without subjective satisfaction based on materials on record and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I set aside and quash the impugned detention order dated 29.10.2011, approval order dated 09.11.2011 and the confirmation order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the respondent authorities as illegal and unsustainable. The detenu Shri Ngangom Sovet Meitei be set at liberty forthwith if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case. Petition stands allowed. Petition allowed