JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. This writ application has been filed challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong on 5.8.2013 directing detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. From the grounds of detention, it appears that on 26.7.2013 the petitioner was arrested by a team of Nungba Police Station from Mantripukhri, Lamlongei in c/w. a case of Nungba P.S. and was remanded to police custody till 5.8.2013. The I.O. seized some cash, a Mobile Phone, a Voter ID Card, a Driving Licence and a black leather wallet. It is the case of the police that the amount had been extorted at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has been remanded to Jail custody. While continuing in Jail custody, the impugned order of detention was passed in Annexure-A/1 on 5.8.2013. The sole contention on behalf of the petitioner is that after the petitioner was arrested and taken to custody in connection with the above case, he had not filed any application for grant of bail and accordingly there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner may be released on bail and that after being released on bail, he would indulge in similar activities. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the order of detention in absence of any bail application pending on behalf of the petitioner, is without any basis and renders the order of detention invalid. 2. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit in support of the order of detention and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a hard-core member of ZUF and has committed various activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. On consideration of the above the order of detention having been passed, there is no illegality in such order of detention. 3. The sole question for consideration before the Court is as to whether in absence of a bail application on behalf of the petitioner for being released on bail in connection with the case for which he had been taken to custody, an order of detention could be passed or not. Law is well settled that the District Magistrate, while passing the order of detention under the NSA, 1980, is required to record his subjective satisfaction. Law is well settled that the District Magistrate, while passing the order of detention under the NSA, 1980, is required to record his subjective satisfaction. The entire order of detention is quoted below: OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: TAMENGLONG DISTRICT MANIPUR ORDER Imphal, the 5th August, 2013. No. Cril./NSA/No. Of 2013: Whereas a Police report has been laid before me by the S.P. Tamenglong vide letter No. 9/4(NSA)/13-SP(TML)2806 dated 3/8/2013 that Mr. Ragongjok Kamei @ Ajok (48) Mr. Sungkhuilung Kamei Leishok (Soubunging) Village a/p. Langol Laimani, PS-Lamphel, District-Imphal West, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; Whereas, I, C.W. Arthur, District Magistrate, Tamenglong, Manipur, am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under section3(2) of National Security Act, 1980: Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Mr. Ragongjok Kamei @ Ajok (48) (48) Mr. Sungkhuilung Kamei Leishok (Soubunglong) village a/p Langol Laimani, PS-Lamphel District-Imphal West, Manipur with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. And whereas, I am satisfied from the Police report that Mr. Ragongjok Kamei @ Ajok (48) Mr. Sungkhuilung Kamei Leishok (Soubunglong) Village a/p Langol Laimanai, PS-Lamphel, District-Imphal West, Manipur who is now in Police custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal court; Now, therefore, I, C.W. Arthur, District Magistrate, Tamenglong, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section-3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department’s Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 13/5/2013 make this order directing that the above said person who is now in police custody be detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 until further order. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this fifth day of August, 2013. Sd/- (C.W. Arthur) District Magistrate, Tamenglong 4. From the 4th paragraph of the order of detention, it appears that the District Magistrate was satisfied from the police report that the petitioner, who was arrested and in police custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal court. From the 4th paragraph of the order of detention, it appears that the District Magistrate was satisfied from the police report that the petitioner, who was arrested and in police custody, is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal court. Nowhere in the order of detention or grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that on the date the order of detention was passed any application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the court. Therefore, while continuing in custody and in absence of any application for bail, there was no necessity on the part of the District Magistrate to pass an order of detention. In this regard, 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) SCC 244. The relevant two paragraphs of the said 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. 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. This judgment has been followed by this Court in several cases such as Shri N. Robi Singh vs. District Magistrate, Imphal West & 2 Ors: WP(Cril.) No. 27 of 2013, (ii) Md. Yumkhaibam Basir vs. DM Thoubal District & 2 Ors: WP(Cril.) No. 30 of 2013 etc. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that in absence of any bail application on behalf of the petitioner pending before the court for being released on bail in the criminal case in which he had been taken to police custody, there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner may be released on bail merely because in similar cases some accused persons had been released on bail earlier. We are, therefore, further of the view that in absence of any bail application on behalf of the petitioner pending consideration by the court, the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, becomes invalid. 6. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that similar cases had come up for consideration before us earlier and several judgments have been delivered quashing the detention solely on the above ground. The District Magistrates, while passing such orders of detention, are not taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra) as well as the judgments passed by this Court in several cases setting aside such orders of detention solely on the above ground. We, therefore, direct that the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Manipur shall circulate a copy of the judgment delivered in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (supra) quoted above, along with a copy of this judgment to all the District Magistrates for their perusal and guidance in future. Copy of this judgment and copy of the judgment in the case of Rekha (supra) be communicated to the Chief Secretary forthwith. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (supra) quoted above, along with a copy of this judgment to all the District Magistrates for their perusal and guidance in future. Copy of this judgment and copy of the judgment in the case of Rekha (supra) be communicated to the Chief Secretary forthwith. For the reasons stated earlier, we allow the writ application, set aside the order of detention dated 5.8.2013 (Annexure-A/1), the approval order dated 14.8.2013 (Annexure-A/4) and the confirmation order dated 3.10.2013 (Annexure-A/5) and direct that the petitioner namely, Ragongjok Kamei @ Ajok be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.