JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, ACJ. The petitioner who has been detained under Subsection 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by order of the District Magistrate, Imphal West dated 27th August, 2013 has filed this writ application challenging the said order of detention in Annexure-A/2. 2. From the impugned order of detention, it appears that the date on which detention order was passed, the petitioner was in Police custody in connection with a criminal case. The District Magistrate in the impugned order of detention has stated that the petitioner who is now in Police custody is likely to be released on bail in the near future by normal criminal court as bails are granted in similar cases by the criminal courts. 3. The sole contention on behalf of the petitioner is that after the petitioner was taken to custody in connection with criminal case, he had not moved for bail and therefore there could not be any apprehension in the mind of the District Magistrate that the petitioner may be released on bail and therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in the impugned order of detention is without any basis thereby rendering the order of detention invalid. 4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that since accused persons in similar cases are being granted bail by the courts, the District Magistrate was of the view that as and when bail application is moved by the petitioner, the same would be allowed and accordingly has recorded his satisfaction in the impugned order that though the petitioner is in Police custody, he may be released on bail as in similar cases bail is granted by the courts. 5. The sole question for consideration is as to whether in the absence of bail application when the petitioner was continuing in Police custody an order of detention could be passed or not. Law is well settled that the District Magistrate has to record his subjective satisfaction in the impugned order to the effect that in the event the petitioner is released on bail, he shall indulge in same criminal activities. Law is well settled that the District Magistrate has to record his subjective satisfaction in the impugned order to the effect that in the event the petitioner is released on bail, he shall indulge in same criminal activities. The impugned order of detention is quoted below: IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: IMPHAL WEST, MANIPUR ORDERS Imphal, the 27th August, 2013 No. Cril./NSA/No.20 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(19) dated 26.8.2013 that Shri Leishangthem Umakanta Singh @ Ibomcha @ Bishworjit @ Maipak (44 yrs) S/o (L) L. Ibotombi Singh of Thoubal Leishangthem Khong Manung Maning Leikai, P.S. Thoubal, District – Thoubal, 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 Leishangthem Umakanta Singh @ Ibomcha @ Bishworjit @ Maipak (44 yrs) S/o (L) L. Ibotombi Singh of Thoubal Leishangthem Khong Manung Maning Leikai, P.S. Thoubal, District – Thoubal, 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 Leishangthem Umakanta Singh @ Ibomcha @ Bishworjit @ Maipak (44 yrs) S/o (L) L. Ibotombi Singh of Thoubal Leishangthem Khong Manung Maning Leikai, P.S. Thoubal, District – Thoubal, 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 08.02.2013 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 twentieth seventh day of August, 2013. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West.” 6. Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court on this twentieth seventh day of August, 2013. Sd/- (K. Radhakumar Singh) District Magistrate, Imphal West.” 6. It is admitted by both parties that on the date the order of detention was passed, no bail application on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration by the court. Therefore, in the absence of any bail application when the petitioner was in custody, there was no necessity on the part of the District Magistrate to pass an order of detention. Reference in this connection may be made to the 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 coaccused 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. This judgment has been followed by this court in several other cases, one of such cases being in the case of Shri Shamurailatpam Bijen Sharma –vrs – State of Manipur & Ors. Vide W.P.(Cril.) No.15 of 2013 disposed of on 12.11.2013. 8. This judgment has been followed by this court in several other cases, one of such cases being in the case of Shri Shamurailatpam Bijen Sharma –vrs – State of Manipur & Ors. Vide W.P.(Cril.) No.15 of 2013 disposed of on 12.11.2013. 8. We are, therefore, of the view that in the 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 does not necessarily mean that the petitioner would also be released on bail in the absence of a bail application. We are, therefore, of the view that in the absence of the bail application pending consideration the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate becomes invalid. 9. We therefore allow the writ application, set aside the impugned order of detention dated 27th August, 2013 in Annexure-A/2, approval order dated 5.09.2013 in Annexure-A/4 and confirmation order dated 03.10.2013 in Annexure-A/10 and direct the petitioner, namely Shri Leishangthem Umakanta Singh @ Ibomcha @ Bishworjit @ Maipak, be released forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case. No costs.