JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. The petitioner, in this writ application, challenges the order of detention dated 7.8.2014 passed under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Bishnupur. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the detenu joined a banned organisation namely Peoples' Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak Progressive in the month of June, 2010 and started working for the said organization. Her job was to transport arms and ammunitions, explosive materials including IEDs from Moreh to Imphal. She was arrested on 11.4.2012 with recovery of two Chinese hand-grenades and one detonator and a case was registered for commission of offence u/s. 16/17/18/20 of UA(P) A. Act and Section 5 of the Expl. Substance Act. She was released on bail by Court on 24.5.2012. After being released on bail, it is alleged that she stayed at home and was leading a normal life but again joined the same organization and got involved in some criminal activities. She was again arrested on 26.7.2014 and was remanded to police custody till 2.8.2014. While in custody, she was again formally arrested in connection with FIR No. 52(7) 14 BPR PS u/s. 307/34 IPC, Section 20 of UA(P) A. Act & Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. After being formally arrested in the said case, she was remanded to police custody till 7.8.2014. Thereafter, she was sent to Jail custody. While in jail custody the detention order was passed. 3. Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the order of detention mainly on two grounds- (i) on the date the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, no application for bail was pending consideration before any court and therefore when the petitioner had not submitted any application for bail in the cases for which she had been arrested, passing of the impugned order under the National Security Act is unjustified; (ii) while confirming the order of detention, the State Government could not have passed the order to detain the detenu for a period of 12 months at one go from the date of detention. Shri A. Vashum, learned State counsel submitted that even though no application for bail was pending on the date the order of detention was passed, the detenu having been released on bail earlier for commission of similar offences, the learned District Magistrate, Bishnupur had every justification to apprehend that in the event the petitioner moves an application for bail, she may be released on bail. So far as second ground is concerned, it was submitted that no such ground has been taken in the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the impugned order of detention does not show anywhere that the petitioner had applied for grant of bail in the cases in which she had been arrested. It is true that on an earlier occasion when she was arrested, she had been released on bail by the Court but in absence of any bail application, the question of releasing the detenu on bail does not arise. Therefore, when the detenu was in judicial custody and had not moved any application for bail, there was no justification on the part of the District Magistrate, Bishnupur to pass the order of detention apprehending that the detenu may be released on bail in the event she files an application as she had been earlier 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 . 5. So far as the second ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is true that no such ground has been taken in the writ petition. However, the State Govt. under Annexure-A/6 vide order dated 29.9.2014 confirmed the order of detention for 12 months from the date of detention. Now, question that arises for consideration is as to whether the State Government could have passed an order of detention for a period of 12 months at a time while confirming the order of detention. In a similar case, placing reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o. Narendra Chowdari vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. In a similar case, placing reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani w/o. Narendra Chowdari vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors reported in 2014(6) Scale 524 , this Court held that in terms of sub section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 an order of detention can be passed for a period of 3 months at one time which could be extended upto a period of 12 months. However, an order of detention passed for a period of 12 months at a time is in contravention of sub section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in WP (Cril) No. 4 of 2015 disposed of on 22.4.2015 in the case of Th. Romen Singh vs. District Magistrate, Thoubal and 2 Ors. 6. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to sustain the order of detention and the order of confirmation in Annexure-A/6. We, therefore, allow the writ petition, quash the detention order in Annexure-A/1 as well as the order of confirmation in Annexure-A/6 and direct that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless her detention is required in any other case.