JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. The petitioner in this writ application challenges the order of detention dated 17.5.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. From the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner joined Kanglei Yaol Kanna Lup ('KYKL' for short), a banned group and was involved in activities detrimental to the interest of the security of the State. 3. On 5.5.2013, he was arrested by a team of CDO/IW and a mobile handset with SIM card were seized from him. He was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge, City Police Station and FIR No. 142(5) 2013 was registered in the said Police Station for commission of offence U/S. 20/17 UA(P) A Act & 25(1-B)A of the said Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was remanded to police custody till 17.5.2013 and by an order of the Court he continued to remain in judicial custody. While in judicial custody, the said order of detention was passed on 17.5.2013 by the District Magistrate, Imphal West on the ground that he is likely to be released by the normal criminal Courts as bail is granted in similar cases. 4. Shri Kh. Mani Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the order of detention solely on the ground that on the date, the order of detention was passed, no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the Court. Since the petitioner was continuing in judicial custody and had not applied for grant of bail, there was no reason on the part of the District Magistrate, Imphal West to apprehend that the petitioner may be released on bail even in the absence of a bail application. It was, further, contended by the learned counsel that the documents placed before the Detaining Authority did not indicate any similar case where bail had been granted by the Court on earlier occasions. 5. Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Mr. Amarjit N, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submitted that considering the activities of the petitioner as detailed in the grounds of detention, it became necessary to detain him under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. 5. Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents as well as Mr. Amarjit N, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submitted that considering the activities of the petitioner as detailed in the grounds of detention, it became necessary to detain him under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. Though no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration on the date the order of detention was passed, there is no dispute that on earlier occasions persons involved in similar offences had been granted bail. Therefore, the District Magistrate had every justification to apprehend that in the event if the petitioner moves an application for bail the same will be allowed. 6. Subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate has to be on the basis of documents placed before him. The documents placed before the District Magistrate nowhere shows that any application on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the Court for grant of bail. No document was also placed before the District Magistrate to show that on earlier occasions for commission of similar offence, accused persons had been released on bail. In absence of the above documents, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order of detention cannot be said to be on any material. Consequently, the order of detention becomes invalid. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme 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. 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. 7. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case and considering the fact of the case that the order of detention was passed when no application for bail was pending consideration, we have no other option except quashing the order of detention. We accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of detention dated 17.5.2013 in Annexure-A/1 as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State dated 17.6.2013 in Annexure-A/4 and direct that the petitioner namely, Shri Mayanglambam Mahesh Singh @ Kiran @ Athouba, S/o M. Apabi Singh of Urup Makha Leikai, P.S. Irilbung, District - Imphal East, Manipur be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case(s).