JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG for the respondent No. 4. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 vide order dated 20.1.2014 issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District. One of the grounds taken for assailing this order of detention is that no legally acceptable material has been disclosed in the impugned order for arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority that the petitioner who is already in custody is likely to be released on bail, except for mentioning the bail order dated 10.6.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Imphal in connection with FIR No. 29(6) 2011 LSG, P.S. U/S. 17/20 UA(P)A. Act. It has been submitted that such subjective satisfaction is not based on any legally admissible material in view of the fact that the petitioner had never applied for any bail in connection with the case for which he had been kept in custody prior to passing of the impugned preventive detention order. 3. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had not filed any bail application in connection with the case under which he was detained prior to the detention under NSA, there was no possibility of he being released on bail and accordingly, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha -vs.- State of Tamil Nadu : (2011) 5 SCC 244 (supra) and followed in Huidrom Konungjao -vs.- State of Manipur : (2012) 7 SCC 181 , this impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. In the said cases, the Supreme Court held that if no bail application had been filed or pending, it can not be said that the person under custody is likely to be released on bail. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in Smt. Wahengbam Ongbi Usharani Devi -vs.- State of Manipur and ors. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in Smt. Wahengbam Ongbi Usharani Devi -vs.- State of Manipur and ors. decided on 11.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 2413 of 2014 has also reiterated the said principle and has held that if no Bail Application was filed, the question of the detenu being released from the custody does not arise in which event it could be held that there was non application of mind by the detaining authority as regards the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. 4. Mr. A. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 4 fairly admit to the settled legal position as mentioned above. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the materials on record, it can be said that as there was no bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with the case in which he was remanded to custody, before the impugned detention order was issued, it cannot be said that there was proper application of mind by the detaining authority on coming to conclusion that the petitioner who was already under custody was likely to be released on bail. 6. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the detention order dated 20.1.2014 detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980 is not sustainable in law and hence, is set aside. Consequently, the order of confirmation issued by the State Government on 12.2.2014 also cannot sustained. In the result, petitioner, namely, Manipur Shri Moirangthem Boboi Singh @ Bobo @ Brojen @ Langam @ Laingam @ Ronex (37 yrs.) S/o M. Pishak Singh of Yairipok Top Laimanai, P.S. Yairipok, District Imphal East, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case(s).