JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.:-- 1. Petitioner, in this writ application, challenges the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal East dated 18.12.2013 directing his detention under Sub Section 3 of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter refers to as the 'NSA, 1980'). From the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner was elected as Member of Zilla Parishad of 6-Laipham Khunou Gram Panchayat in the year 2007. On 1.1.2012 it was reported that he had fired from his licenced gun at the residential gate of one Khoimu Singh and a case was registered for commission of offence u/s. 307 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 3.1.2012 he was arrested and was released on bail on 5.1.2012. His term as Member of the GP was completed in Sept/2012 and he again contested but lost. Due to the debt incurred in contesting the election, he wanted to earn money and contacted one W. Ramananda, a member of the KCP Lallumba faction. The said Ramanda asked the petitioner to watch the movement of Shri Suresh Prasad and security forces with an intention to kidnap him for ransom. It is also stated in the ground of detention that on 4.12.2013 the petitioner was again arrested in connection with an FIR No.91(12) 2013 Heingang PS for commission of offence u/s. 365/447/120-B of the IPC and Section 25(I-C)A. Act and was remanded to police custody till 18.12.2013. After 18.12.2013 he had been sent to judicial custody. The impugned order of detention was passed on 18.12.2013 on the ground that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in near future as bail is granted for commission of similar offence. 2. Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the grounds of detention, submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to his association with any Underground organization and that there is no allegation to show that the petitioner was involved in any action or activity related to any banned organization. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident of 2012 was a criminal act and the incident dt. 4.12.2013 is also a criminal act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident of 2012 was a criminal act and the incident dt. 4.12.2013 is also a criminal act. There being no allegation of breach of public order in the grounds of detention, the impugned order of detention passed under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the NSA, 1980 is unsustainable. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was in judicial custody and had not moved any application for bail, there was no justification on the part of the District Magistrate, Imphal East to pass the order of detention. 3. Mr. Y. Ashang, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Amarjit Naorem, learned CGSC, submitted that in the grounds of detention it is specifically stated that the petitioner was a sympathiser of one U.G. organization, namely, KCP and was also involved in two criminal cases for which it became necessary to pass an order of detention under the NSA, 1980. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate, Imphal East in the impugned order of detention is based on the fact that in similar cases bail had been granted by the criminal court and one such order was placed before the District Magistrate which is evident from the grounds of detention. 4. Undisputed, on the first occasion when the petitioner was arrested on 3.1.2012, he was working as Member of Zilla Parishad and in connection with that case there is no allegation that there was breach of public order. The petitioner was arrested again on the second occasion on 4.12.2013, but there is nothing on record that the offence for which he was arrested, resulted in breach of public order. 5. In paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner was a sympathiser of one U.G. organization, namely, KCP which carried out prejudicial activities disturbing public order and affecting public tranquillity. There is nothing in the grounds of detention to show that the petitioner was involved in any way in the matter of disturbance of public order or public tranquillity. Apart from the above, on the date the order of detention was passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody and no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration. In the case of Rekha V. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Apart from the above, on the date the order of detention was passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody and no application for bail on behalf of the petitioner was pending consideration. In the case of Rekha V. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 the Apex Court made the following observation in paragraph 26 and 27 of the judgment as 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. 6. In view of what has been held by the Apex Court in the above case, when no bail application was pending consideration, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority becomes invalid. 7. For the reasons stated above we allow the writ application, quash the impugned order of detention dt. 18.12.2013 in Annexure-A/1 as well as the confirmation order passed by the Govt. of Manipur and direct that the petitioner namely, Takhelmayum Nandababu Singh be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. ………………………………..