JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. This writ application has been filed challenging the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on 8.10.2013 directing detention of the petitioner under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Government. The grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner was once arrested on 4.10.2001 by a team of CDO/IE and was produced before the Court for remand on 12.10.2001 in connection with FIR No. 81 (10) 2001. He was released on bail on the same day. Again, he was arrested on 6.2.2005 by a team of CDO/IW and was remanded to Jail custody in connection with FIR No. 6(2)2005. He was subsequently released on bail. Thereafter on 23.9.2013, he was arrested for the 3rd time by the CDO/IW and a case was registered bearing No. 255(9)2013 for commission of offence U/S. 121/121-A IPC, 20 UA(P) A. Act and 25(1-B)A of the same Act and was remanded to Police custody till 8.10.2013. Thereafter he has been in jail custody. While continuing in jail custody in connection with the above case, the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West. 2. Shri Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order of detention basically on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that there was a delay of 5 days in forwarding the representation of the petitioner to the Central Government and such delay having not been explained, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. The second ground of challenge is that the earlier two arrests which had taken place were in the year 2001 and 2005 respectively and after a gap of almost of 8 years, the petitioner was arrested for the 3rd time. Therefore, the observation of the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that the petitioner had the tendency and inclination for committing offences and had done so in the proximate past is not factually correct. It was also contended that when the petitioner was in jail and no bail application was pending consideration, there was no necessity of passing of order of detention. There was nothing before the District Magistrate to show that the petitioner had moved for bail. It was also contended that when the petitioner was in jail and no bail application was pending consideration, there was no necessity of passing of order of detention. There was nothing before the District Magistrate to show that the petitioner had moved for bail. The recording of subjective satisfaction by the District Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner may be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases is without any basis. 3. Learned State counsel, Shri A. Vasum, appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Shri Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC for Central Govt. contended that the petitioner is a member of a banned organization namely Peoples' Liberation Army (for short PLA) and had been arrested twice earlier for his association with the said organization and on both occasions for committing of similar offences, he had been released on bail and therefore, the District Magistrate had every justification to apprehend that in the present case also he may be released on bail. Considering his activities since 2001, the District Magistrate having passed the order of detention, there is no illegality in the same. 4. So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, it relates to delay in disposal of the representation mad to the Central Government. It was contended by Shri Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was a delay of 5 days in considering the representation addressed to the Central Government and therefore, the order of detention is illegal. Reliance was placed by Shri Kh. Mani Singh on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi-Vrs-State of Manipur & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 . In the said reported case there was a delay of 7 days in forwarding the representation to the Central Government. Though the Court held that such delay is not inordinate, however came to a finding that at no stage any explanation had been offered for the delay. 4.1. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State respondents as well as the Central Government, it appears that the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.10.2013 and the same was forwarded to the State Government on 23.10.2013. 4.1. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State respondents as well as the Central Government, it appears that the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.10.2013 and the same was forwarded to the State Government on 23.10.2013. The State Government in turn forwarded the said representation to the Central Government on 26.10.2013 and the same was received in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 8.11.2013. The said representation was rejected on 11.11.2013. Therefore, there was delay of only 3 days, i.e. from 23.10.2013 to 26.10.2013, on the part of the State Government in forwarding the representation to the Central Government. We are of the view that 3 days' delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner by the State Government to the Central Government cannot be construed to be such as inordinate delay that the order of detention would become invalid. 4.2. We are of the view that 3 days' delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner by the State Government to the Central Government cannot be construed to be such as inordinate delay that the order of detention would become invalid. 4.2. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, the entire order of detention dated 8.10.2013 is quoted below: In The Court of The District Magistrate: Imphal West, Manipur Orders Imphal, the 8th October, 2013 No. Cril./NSA/No. 25 of 2013: Whereas a police report has been laid before me by the S.P. Imphal West, Manipur vide letter No. 22/Spl-Cell/2013(24)/363 dated 5.10.2013 that Shri Yumlembam Joykumar Singh @ Waiba @ Thoiba, (32 Yrs), S/o (L) Y. Biramangol Singh of Chandrapur, Jiribam, P.S. Jiribam, A/P Bramhapur Bamol Leikai, P.S.-Porompat District-Imphal East, Manipur is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; Whereas, I, K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur, am satisfied that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980; Whereas, it is considered necessary to detain Shri Yumlembam Joykumar Singh @ Waiba @ Thoiba, (32 Yrs), S/o (L) Y. Biramangol Singh of Chandrapur, Jiribam, P.S. Jiribam, A/P Bramhapur Bamol Leikai, P.S.-Porompat District-Imphal East, 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 Shri Yumlembam Joykumar Singh @ Waiba @ Thoiba, (32 Yrs), S/o (L) Y. Biramangol Singh of Chandrapur, Jiribam, P.S. Jiribam, A/P Bramhapur Bamol Leikai, P.S.-Porompat District-Imphal East, 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 courts; Now, therefore, I K. Radhakumar Singh, District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 read with Home Department's Order No. 17(1)/49/80-H(Pt-I) dated 14.08.2013 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 orders. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this eight day of October, 2013. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West. 5. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this eight day of October, 2013. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West. 5. From the order of detention, it is clear that the District Magistrate was satisfied from the Police report that the petitioner who is now in Police custody is likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal criminal courts as bails are granted in similar case(s). There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had moved an application for bail after he was arrested on 23.9.2013 in connection with FIR NO. 255(9)2013. Had there been a bail application pending, the District Magistrate could have apprehended that for commission of similar offence the petitioner having been released on bail on two other earlier occasions may also be released on bail. In absence of bail application when the petitioner was continuing in custody there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner would be released on bail. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 . The relevant paragraphs of the above 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. 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. 6. Therefore, on this ground alone, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. Apart from the above, in paragraph-4 of the ground of detention, it is said that in view of the tendency and inclination reflected in the offence committed by the petitioner in the proximate past as a member of the banned organization, namely PLA, the District Magistrate is satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities, he would again join the organisation and carry out the prejudicial activities. The above statements made in the ground of detention is not factually correct. As is evident from the ground of detention, the petitioner had been arrested once on 4.10.2001 and again on 6.2.2005. In between 2005 and 2013 no criminal case had been registered against him and there was a gap of about 8 years. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 321 . Though this decision may not have a direct bearing on the issue, from paragraph-14 of the judgment, it appears that there was a gap of almost 12 years between the two FIRs and there was no link between the earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which the order of detention was passed. A criminal writ filed by the detenu challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 was set aside by the Supreme Court. We therefore, find substantial force in the submission of Shri Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A criminal writ filed by the detenu challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 was set aside by the Supreme Court. We therefore, find substantial force in the submission of Shri Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order of detention not being supported by any material and the said order having been passed when the petitioner was in judicial custody specially when he had not applied for grant of bail, the said order of detention becomes invalid. 6.1 We accordingly set aside the order of detention dated 8.10.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West in Annexure-A/1, order of confirmation dated 29.11.2013 in Annexure-A/4 and direct the petitioner, namely Yumlembam Joykumar Singh @ Waiba @ Thoiba, S/o (L) Y. Biramangol Singh of Chandrapur, Jiripam, P.S. Jiribam, be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case(s).