1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. Nabachandra Singh, who submits that the detenue was initially arrested on 6.1.2012 on different allegations and finally he has been placed under the National Security Act, 1980 w.e.f. 16.2.2012 vide detention order dated 16.2.2012, Annexure A/1 at p. 22. The learned counsel, further, submits that the detenue has no previous records to show that on being his released he had gone back to the illegal activities prejudicial to the interest of the State and Nation so he may be released immediately. On the other hand, learned State counsel, Mr. Y. Ashang, who appears for the State respondents, fairly submits that the detenue has no previous records to show that on being his released he had gone back to the same activities but the fact remains that illegal arms, etc., were recovered from his possession, which indicates that the allegations made against him are correct so he may not be released from the detention. 2. I have perused the detention order dated 16.1.2012. In this instant case also, it appears that the District Magistrate passed the detention order on the basis of Police report. The apprehension of the District Magistrate was that the detenue may be released on bail. Therefore, I find the detention order is on the basis of mere assumption and presumption, which is nothing but ipse dixit. While going through the records at page 26, para 7, of the grounds of detention, the District Magistrate had noted "7. In view of your prejudicial activities in the proximate past, it can be reasonably presumed that you would be continuing to act in the same manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in case you are released on bail. Hence, the application of normal criminal laws against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from committing such activities. An effective measure to prevent you from committing further prejudicial activities is immediately called for." From the above para, it appears that the District Magistrate has come to the conclusion that normal criminal law is not effective to prevent the detenue for committing such activities. I could not understand how a District Magistrate can come to the conclusion that normal law is not effective. I could not understand how a District Magistrate can come to the conclusion that normal law is not effective. We have to remember that our country is a democratic country, here every man is innocent until and unless his guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. It is our criminal jurisprudence adopted that no innocent to be punished until and unless the allegation is proved beyond doubt, and it is up to the Government, District Administration, Police to gather the evidence and to place the case before the court against all the wrong doers. Then only the court can pass an effective sentence which is the corrective measure. One alone cannot allow to pass order at random to send person to jail. Settled principle of law court cannot pass conviction for mere mental satisfaction. It is the duty at the prosecution to establish the charge. From the evidence, if two interpretations arise, one goes in favour of the accused and another goes in favour of the prosecution. The interpretation which is in favour of the accused needs to be adopted. Therefore, I am unable to accept the detention order dated 16.2.2012 as it is totally without application of mind; hence, the impugned detention order dated 16.2.2012 and its subsequent orders are hereby set aside and directed the authority concerned to releaso the detenue, namely Shri Yensenbam Romeo Singh, S/o late Y. Thoiba Singh of Langdum Awang Leikai, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur, forthwith in case he is not required in connection with any other case(s). 3. With this observations and direction, the instant petition allowed and stands disposed of.