JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. The petitioner in this writ application challenges his detention in pursuance of order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District dated 08.04.2013 in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the ’NSA’) read with Home Department’s order dated 08.02.2013. The case of the petitioner is that on 20.3.2013 he was arrested from his residence and was handed over to the Officer in-Charge of Singjamei P.S. wherein a case was registered against him vide FIR No. 76(3) 2013 Sjm P.S. u/s. 20UA(P)A. Act & 5 Expl. A. Act. He was remanded to police custody till 26.3.2013 and by order of the Court he was remanded to judicial custody w.e.f. 26.3.2013. His wife filed an application before the Court on 2.4.2013 for grant of bail and he was released on bail by the court on 5.4.2013. After being released on bail, he was again summoned to the Singjamei Police Station on 7.4.2013 and was detained illegally till 8.4.2013 without any further case. On 8.4.2013 the order of detention was passed and grounds of detention was served on him on 10.4.2013. Thereafter, his representations were rejected, the order of detention was approved by the Board and later on confirmed by the State. 2. Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of detention solely on the ground that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the order of detention is based on no material. Referring to the grounds of detention, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that several documents were placed before the District Magistrate which form the grounds of detention, but none of the documents relates to the order passed by the Court granting bail to the petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any document as to whether petitioner had been granted bail or not, the District Magistrate could not have recorded a finding in the impugned order of detention that the petitioner had been released on bail and is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State as well as maintenance of public order. 3. Referring to the counter affidavit, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that on the date the impugned order of detention was passed, undisputedly the petitioner was on bail. 3. Referring to the counter affidavit, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that on the date the impugned order of detention was passed, undisputedly the petitioner was on bail. This fact is also admitted in the writ petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate, while passing the impugned order of detention on 8.4.2013, did not know about the order of bail granted in favour of the petitioner or that he had already been released on bail in pursuance of the said order. It was, further, contended by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that earlier, as is evident from the grounds of detention, the petitioner had been arrested on more than one occasions on similar allegations and had been released on bail. In the impugned order the District Magistrate did apply his mind to the fact of the case while issuing the order of detention on 8.4.2013. 4. The relevant paragraph of the order of detention dealing with the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is quoted below: And whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Sougrakpam Surjit Singh @ Ibungo @ Manglem @ Piba (39 yrs) s/o (L) S. Yaima Singh @ Ingochabi @ Chabi of Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai, P.S. Singjamei, District-Imphal West, Manipur who is now released on bail by the Hon’ble court, is likely to continue to act in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State as well as maintenance of public order. From the above, it is clear that the District Magistrate, while passing the said order of detention was satisfied that the petitioner had been released on bail and is likely to continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State as well as maintenance of public order. Surprisingly, in the grounds of detention, the description of the documents have been given which not only formed grounds of detention but also had been placed before the District Magistrate before passing the order of detention, none of the documents mentioned in paragraph 6 thereof relates to any order passed by the court granting bail to the petitioner in any case. If no other document was placed before the District Magistrate, apart from what has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, there was no occasion on the part of the District Magistrate to know as to whether the petitioner was in jail custody or had been released on bail. It is interesting to note that in the grounds of detention the District Magistrate has observed that the petitioner is in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. The above statement appearing in paragraph 4 of the order of detention is also quoted below: 4. That, on 20.3.2013 at 4:30 a.m. you were arrested by a police team of CDO/IW led by S.I. N. Robindro Singh from Singjamei Sougrakpam Leikai 2(two) IED packets, 10(ten) detonator, 1(one) remote control and one battery were recovered at his pointing from Namching, Keithelmanbi on the same day at 6.30 a.m. and seized the same by observing formality. Then you were handed over to the OC/Singjamei PS with a written report and seized articles. On the strength of the report, OC/Singjamei PS registered a regular case under FIR No. 76(3) 2013 SJM-P.S. u/s. 20 UA(P) Amdt Act and 5 Expl. Subs. Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation the case, you were arrested in connection with the case and remanded to judicial custody on 26.3.2013. You are now in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa. 5. The above observation made by the District Magistrate in the grounds of detention dated 10.4.2013, is in consonance with the documents placed before him for the purpose of passing the order of detention. Since none of the documents placed before the District Magistrate relates to the grant of bail to the petitioner, in the grounds of detention the District Magistrate rightly observed that the petitioner was in Manipur Central Jail at Sajiwa. If in the grounds of detention dated 10.4.2013 the District Magistrate recorded a finding that the petitioner was in Jail, he could have passed the order of detention on 8.4.2013 stating that the petitioner was on bail. This clearly shows non application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate while issuing the order of detention on 8.4.2013. Even if the petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had been released on bail by order of the Court dt. This clearly shows non application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate while issuing the order of detention on 8.4.2013. Even if the petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had been released on bail by order of the Court dt. 5.4.2013, there was such material available before the District Magistrate and accordingly his satisfaction recorded in the impugned order of detention is not only based without any record in support of same but also contrary to what has been stated in paragraph 4 of the order of detention. We are, therefore, satisfied that the learned District Magistrate while passing the order of detention, did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. 6. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baby Devassy Chully alias Bobby vs. Union of India & Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 531 . In the said reported case, the petitioner therein had been taken to custody under COFEPOSA. It appears that the petitioner therein was arrested and had been granted bail prior to passing of the order of detention, but he continued to be in Jail on the date of passing of that order. Though this fact was not mentioned in the detention order, but in the grounds of detention which formed part of the order of detention details about the bail order and non-availing of the same by the detenu on the date of detention order are mentioned. It is, therefore, clear that in the said reported case though the detenu had been granted bail, he did not avail bail and was in judicial custody on the date the order of detention was passed. Though this fact was not mentioned in the order of detention, in the grounds of detention details of such fact had been mentioned. In those circumstances, the apex Court did not interfere with the order of detention. The facts of the present case are completely different. As stated earlier, no document whatsoever was placed before the detaining authority to show that the petitioner, who has been arrested, was on bail on the date, order of detention was passed. Therefore, in the grounds of detention the detaining authority made an observation that the petitioner was in Jail. If in the grounds of detention dt. As stated earlier, no document whatsoever was placed before the detaining authority to show that the petitioner, who has been arrested, was on bail on the date, order of detention was passed. Therefore, in the grounds of detention the detaining authority made an observation that the petitioner was in Jail. If in the grounds of detention dt. 10.4.2013 the District Magistrate observed that the petitioner was in Jail, he could not have recorded the finding in the order dt. 8.4.2013 that the petitioner has been released on bail. 7. We are, therefore, of the view that the facts in the present case being completely different than that of the facts in the above reported case, the said judgment has no application to the present case. 8. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. also placed reliance on another judgment of the apex Court in the case of D.M. Nagaraja vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2001) 10 SCC 215 to support his contention that the petitioner is a habitual offender and was involved in similar type of cases time and again and therefore his detention was justified. 9. In the said reported case, the detenu had 30 years’ activities like damaging public property, provoking public, attempting to grab property of members of public, extortion, possessing illegal weapons, committing murder, attempting to commit murder, rioting, dacoity etc. He was getting bail in several cases and was continuing to perform such activities. Contention before the Court was that when the said detenu was only involved in criminal activities, action could be taken against him under ordinary law and detention under Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 was not justified. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that the said decision of the apex Court is applicable to the present case. In the reported case, the detenu was involved in several cases as mentioned therein and with reference to those cases the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the detenu was involved in disruption of public order, and action under ordinary law is not sufficient to prevent him from committing similar crimes. That is not the ground on which the impugned order has been passed in this case. That is not the ground on which the impugned order has been passed in this case. Nowhere in the order of detention the District Magistrate has recorded finding that that the petitioner was earlier involved in similar cases and had been released on bail and that after being released on bail, he continued to commit such crimes and that action under common law is not sufficient to prevent him from committing such crime. In absence of such finding by the District Magistrate, the above judgment has no application to the present case. Having held that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind while passing the order of detention and that the observation made by the District Magistrate in the order of detention is contrary to what has been stated in the grounds of detention, we have no other option except to allow the writ application. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of detention in Annexure-A/1 dated 8.4.2013 and direct that the petitioner namely Sougrakpam Surjit Singh @ Ibungo @ Manglem @ Piba be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.