JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention of the petitioner under an order dated 14.07.2014 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'NSA') by the District Magistrate, Imphal West. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner on 16.07.2014. As per the detention order dated 14.07.2014, it has been stated that the petitioner who is now in judicial custody should be prevented from commission of prejudicial activities through an alternative preventive measure. 3. In the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is an active member of a banned organisation namely, Peoples' Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak-Shanti faction (PREPAK-Shanti in short) having joined it in the month of April, 2008. While in active service of the said banned organisation, he was arrested on 15.05.2008 in connection with FIR No. 58(5) 3008 Bishnupur P.S. under Section 20/17 UA (P) A. Act 2004 and remanded to police custody till 19.05.2008. However, he was released on bail by the Court on 19.05.2008. After his release, the petitioner resumed his work as a member of the said banned organization. The said organization has been renamed as UPPK and the petitioner continued in his illegal activities after being set free by the Court indulging in various acts including extortion of money from general public. He along with other accomplices planted one hand grenade in the office of the P.D.A in which connection with which an FIR No. 496(8) 2011 Imphal P.S. under Section 447/307 IPC, 20 UA(P)A. Act & 4 Epl. Subs. Act was registered. While involved in the aforesaid activities, the petitioner joined another banned organisation namely, KCP-Malemnganba Faction in the month of October, 2011 and continued this prejudicial activities. The petitioner along with his associates of the banned organisation hurled one Chinese hand grenade at the court yard of Shri Loitongbam Kesho Singh who was working as Executive Engineer of PDA on 8.11.2011 in connection with which an FIR being No. 355(11) 2011 SJM P.S. under Section 307/506/34 IPC, 4 Expl. Subs. The petitioner along with his associates of the banned organisation hurled one Chinese hand grenade at the court yard of Shri Loitongbam Kesho Singh who was working as Executive Engineer of PDA on 8.11.2011 in connection with which an FIR being No. 355(11) 2011 SJM P.S. under Section 307/506/34 IPC, 4 Expl. Subs. Act & 20UA(P)A. Act was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner left Manipur and took shelter in Bihar to evade arrest by the Manipur Police/ security force. However, the petitioner remained in touch with family members and other members of the said UPPK. It has been stated in the grounds of detention that after receiving reliable information, the petitioner was arrested in Bihar on 02.06.2014 in connection with one of the aforesaid FIR cases and he was brought to Imphal on 07.06.2014 and remanded to police custody till 17.6.2014. The petitioner was also formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 454 (8) 2011 IPS under Section 447/506 IPC & 16/20 UA(P)A. Act and remanded to Police custody till 21.06.2014. Thereafter, he was formally arrested on 21.06.2014 in connection with FIR No. 496(8) 2011 Imphal P.S. under Section 447/307/IPC, 20 UA P) A. Act & 4 Expl. Subs. Act and remanded to Police custody till 26.06.2014 and thereafter to judicial custody. Considering the activities of the petitioner, the District Magistrate being satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities, the petitioner would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order, invoked the provisions of Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 to detain him, by issuing detention order dated 14.07.2014. 4. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 355(11) 2011 SJM P.S. under Section 307/506/34 IPC, 4 Expl. Subs. Act & 20 UA (P) A. Act in connection with which the petitioner had filed a bail application before the Court. However, the same was pending before the Court. The petitioner was in the meantime arrested also in connection with FIR No. 496(8) 2011 Imphal P.S. and FIR NO. 454(8) 2011 Imphal P.S. and he was remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody in those cases also but the petitioner did not file any bail application in respect of the said two later FIR cases. Accordingly, Mr. Ch. 454(8) 2011 Imphal P.S. and he was remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody in those cases also but the petitioner did not file any bail application in respect of the said two later FIR cases. Accordingly, Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the petitioner had filed a bail application in respect of one of the FIR cases, he did not file any application in respect of the remaining two FIR cases in connection with which also he was arrested. Accordingly, it has been submitted that question of the petitioner being released on bail does not arise and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in forming opinion that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail which was also not indicated in the detention order, is not based on any legally permissible basis and accordingly, has submitted that the detention order has been vitiated. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha -vs.- State of Tamil Nadu: (2011) 5 SCC 244 as well as Huidrom Konungjao Singh -vs.- State of Manipur and Ors.: (2012) 7 SCC 181 and as per the latest decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Wahengbam Ongbi Usharani Devi-vs.- State of Manipur and Ors. decided on 11.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 2413 of 2014, Mr. Ngongo, the learned counsel has contended that in absence of any bail application, question of release on bail does not arise and as such any detention of a person already in custody cannot be issued as in absence of such bail application there was no likelihood of his being released. Accordingly, it has been stated that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. A. Vashum, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner is a hard core criminal who is involved in various illegal and violent activities which have been enumerated in the grounds of detention. It is also a fact that when the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2008 in connection with FIR No. 58(5) 2008 Bishnupur P.S., he was released on the same day on 19.05.2008. After having being released on bail he continued to indulge in prejudicial activities. It is also a fact that when the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2008 in connection with FIR No. 58(5) 2008 Bishnupur P.S., he was released on the same day on 19.05.2008. After having being released on bail he continued to indulge in prejudicial activities. Further, the petitioner had filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 355(11) 2011 SJM P.S. and there was likelihood of being released him on bail as in the past. Mr. A Vashum, learned G.A. has submitted that there was every possibility that the petitioner would have been released in the remaining cases also one he files bail applications. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail is based on reasonable material as indicated above, and as such subjective satisfaction cannot be said to be without any basis and accordingly, it has been stated that the impugned order of detention may not be disturbed. 6. Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India has submitted that though there is no specific allegation against the Union of India, considering the serious prejudicial activities reflected in the grounds of detention, the order is quite valid. 7. On considering of the materials on record it is evident that the charges against the petitioner are quite serious as disclosed in the grounds of detention which shows that he has been indulging in prejudicial activities since 2008 and continued to do so and has been accused in various cases in as many FIRs registered against him. On the earlier occasion he was also arrested but released on the same day. Therefore, if the authority takes view that he is likely to be released on bail in the subsequent cases also cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. However, the issue is about the pending cases where he has not filed any bail application. On the earlier occasion he was also arrested but released on the same day. Therefore, if the authority takes view that he is likely to be released on bail in the subsequent cases also cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. However, the issue is about the pending cases where he has not filed any bail application. Though the detaining authority may bonafide form subjective satisfaction that he may be likely to be released on bail, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not filed any bail application in respect of the two FIRs cases in which he was arrested in June, 2014, as mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the grounds of detention, there was no possibility of his being released on bail in these two cases in absence of bail applications. Therefore, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as submitted by Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is also of the view that in absence of bail applications filed by the petitioner, the question of the petitioner being released on bail in connection with the said two cases does not arise. Accordingly, we are of the view that in spite of serious charges against him, in absence of filing of bail applications he could not have been released on bail in those two cases. In that it cannot be said that there were valid materials before the detaining authority to form such a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no other alternative except to release the petitioner by setting aside the impugned detention order dated 14.07.2014. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 14.07.2014 is set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Shri Leishangthem Angouba @ Malem Meitei (36) S/o (L) L. Chandramani Singh of Chairel Leingangtabi, P.S. Kumbi, District-Bishnupur, Manipur is entitled to be released forthwith unless required in other case(s).