ORDER : The petitioner who has been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Thoubal District under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 vide order dated 19th June, 2013 has filed this writ application challenging the said order of detention in Annexure-A/1. 2. It appears that when the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa in connection with a criminal case, the impugned order was passed solely on the ground that he is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and that an alternative preventive measure is called for. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on the date of the order of detention was passed no application for bail was pending on behalf of the petitioner in any court for being released on bail. Since the petitioner was in custody and no application for bail had been filed by him, there was no necessity on the part of the District Magistrate to pass order of detention. In the absence of any application for bail, the order of detention becomes invalid. 3. Learned counsel for the State in support of the order of detention submitted that considering the conduct of the petitioner which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, the District Magistrate thought it proper to detain him under preventive detention in exercise of his authority under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. 4. Undisputedly, on the date, the order of detention was passed, the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa in connection with a criminal case. Admittedly, the petitioner had not moved any application for bail. Law is well settled that when the detenu is in custody and there is no apprehension of his being released on bail, an order of detention becomes invalid. In the present case, the District Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction to the effect that though the petitioner is in Manipur Central Jail he is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The relevant portion of the detention order indicating the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is quoted below : IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR ORDER Thoubal, the 19th June, 2013 No. Cril. The relevant portion of the detention order indicating the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is quoted below : IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR ORDER Thoubal, the 19th June, 2013 No. Cril. NSA No. 6 of 2013 : Whereas a police report has been laid before me that Md. Yumkhaibam Basir alias Md. Basir (31 yrs.) s/o (L) Md. Haji Rahimuddin of Hiyangthang Tarahei, PS Wangoi, District Imphal West, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Whereas, I, shri T. Ranjit Singh, District Magistrate, Thoubal Manipur, am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Md. Yumkhailbam Basir alias Md. Basir (31 yrs) s/o (L) Md. Haji Rahimuddin of Hiyangthang Tarahei, PS Wangoi, 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 Md. Yumkhaibam Basir alias Md. Basir (31 yrs) s/o (L) Md. Haji Rahimuddin of Hiyangthang Tarahei, PS Wangoi, District-Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa 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 under, and also that an alternative preventive measure is called for; Now, therefore, I Shri T. Ranjit, District Magistrate, Thoubal, Manipur in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 13-5-2013 make this order that the above said person who is now in Manipur Centre Jail, Sajiwa 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 19th day of June, 2013. Sd/- (T. Ranjit Singh) District Magistrate, Thoubal District. 5. Since the petitioner was in custody on the date the detention order was passed and no bail application was pending in any Court for being released on bail, we are of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate as recorded in the impugned order is not in accordance with law. 5. Since the petitioner was in custody on the date the detention order was passed and no bail application was pending in any Court for being released on bail, we are of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate as recorded in the impugned order is not in accordance with law. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 856 : 2011 Cri LJ (Supp) 363). The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are quoted below : 26. It was held in Union of India v. Paul Manickam that if the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can validly be made. 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 even 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. 6. The above judgment of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in several cases, one of such cases being the case of Shri Shamurailatpam Bijen Sharma v. State of Manipur vide W.P. (Cri) No. 15 of 2013 disposed of on 12-11-2013. 6. The above judgment of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in several cases, one of such cases being the case of Shri Shamurailatpam Bijen Sharma v. State of Manipur vide W.P. (Cri) No. 15 of 2013 disposed of on 12-11-2013. Admittedly, when the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail, there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner may continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Recording of such satisfaction in the absence of a bail application has no basis and therefore the impugned order of detention becomes invalid. 7. For the above reasons, we allow the writ application, set aside the impugned order of detention dated 19th June, 2013 in Annexure-A/1, approval order dated 24th June, 2013 in Annexure-A/4 and confirmation order dated 19th July, 2013 in Annexure-A/6 and direct that the petitioner namely, Md. Yumkhaibam Basir alias Md. Basir (31 yrs) s/o (L) Md. Haji Rahimuddin of Hiyangthang Tarahei, P.S. Wangoi, District-Imphal West, Manipur, be released forthwith unless his detention is required in other case(s). No costs. Order accordingly.