JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.7.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No.1, whereby and whereunder the respondent No.1, in exercise of power conferred under sub section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 passed the order of detention in a case bearing No.Cril./NSA/No.14 of 2016 against detenu namely Leimapokpam Rajendro Singh @ Ibungo after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to do so. 3. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined the armed insurgent organization, Kanglei Yawol Kanba Lup (KYKL) as a Member in the month of January, 2015. The aims and objects of the said organization is to secede State of Manipur from the union of India and to create sovereign and independent State. After joining the said organization the detenu came in contact with number of persons associated with said organization who utilsied the services of the detenu as a courier. The detenu along with other member of the organization under the command of self styled Capt. Kh. Somorjit @ Santa Macha extorted money from general public, Schools, Colleges, Shopkeepers, businessman and contractor etc. and deposited it with the said self styled Capt. In the first week of May, 2016 the detenu along with his other associates served extortion notes to educational institutions, oil pumps, hotels located within the Imphal West District. Subsequently, said Somorjit handed over one 9 mm pistol with 3 live cartridges, Chinese hand grenades to K. Domorendro through the detenu for using it for the purpose of extortion of money from the educational institutions and others by threatening them on the point of the arms and ammunitions. Said Domorendro Singh kept concealed the said arms and ammunition at the backyard of his house. 4. On 10.5.2016 when said K. Domorendro was apprehended by the Imphal West Police, mobile, sim as well as 9 mm pistol with live cartridges and also Chinese hand-grenades were seized. Said Domorendro Singh kept concealed the said arms and ammunition at the backyard of his house. 4. On 10.5.2016 when said K. Domorendro was apprehended by the Imphal West Police, mobile, sim as well as 9 mm pistol with live cartridges and also Chinese hand-grenades were seized. On disclosure being made by the said Domendro, the detenu was also arrested on the same day and was handed over to Singjamei Police Station with written report and the seized articles on the basis of which Singjamei PS case No.77 (5) 2016 was registered u/s 17/20 of UA(P) Act as well as lu/s 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and also under 5 of the Expl. Subs Act. The detenu was arrested and was sent to judicial custody. 5. While the detenu was in custody, an order of detention was passed on 16.7.2016by the respondent No.1, after recording that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was approved on 27.7.2016. The order of detention and its approval have been challenged on several grounds. 6. However, Mr. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner did confine his argument with respect to only one ground which is with regard to material being absent for recording satisfaction by the detaining authority that there is possibility of detenu being released on bail. In this regard, learned counsel submits that since the detenu had moved a bail application before the Court of CJM, the detaining authority did draw his satisfaction that detenu is likely to be released on bail, though by filing bail application one cannot be sure that he would be released on bail or not. Under the circumstances it can easily be said that satisfaction of the detaining authority was not based on any material, rather it was imaginary one and therefore the order of detention being untenable is fit to be quashed. 7. As against this Mr. Vashum, learned GA submitted that from the order of detention it would appear that the detaining authority having taken notice of the fact recorded in the ground of detention, did satisfy himself that detenu after being released on bail, would indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and only after recording such satisfaction the order of detention has been passed which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 8. 8. It goes without saying that in a case of preventive detention no offence is proved and justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability. There is no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence; whereas Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by a law. In such situation a machinery was definitely needed to examine the question of lawful detention with utmost promptitude. The applicant must show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, he shows such a cause and the return is not good and sufficient, he is entitled to be released by the High Court and Supreme Court upon issuance of writ of habeas corpus. 9. It be stated that the Detaining Authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Since clause (3) of Article 22 specifically excludes the applicability of clause (1) & clause (2), the detenu is not entitled to a lawyer and the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. To prevent misuse of this deterrent law, the law of preventive detention is to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital. These procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Court and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu. In this regard, we may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1981) 4 SCC 481 : 1981 SCC(Cri) 853, wherein Their Lordships has observed:- “4... ... May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase!) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them, and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenu.” In this context, we may refer to another decision rendered in the case of Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs. B.K. Jha, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 22 : 1987 SCC(Cri) 244 wherein it has been held:- “5.. . B.K. Jha, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 22 : 1987 SCC(Cri) 244 wherein it has been held:- “5.. . . The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard.” 10. Keeping in view of the said principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Union of India Vs. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342 : 2004 SCC(Cri) 239 recorded requirements to be made by the Detaining Authority passing order of detention when the detenu is in custody, which reads as follows:- “14... ..Where detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws has to be clearly indicated. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or economic stability, etc. Ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated... Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated... The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC(Cri) 88. The principles were set out as follows: even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed: (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of release on bail.” 11. In that event at the cost of repetition, we may record that Detaining Authority while passing order of detention in a case of detenu being in custody, needs to observe following safeguards meticulously :- (i) If the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (ii) If there is reason to believe on the basis of available materials placed before him- (a) that there is every possibility of being released; and (b) that on being so released he would be in all probability to indulge in prejudicial activities; (iii) If it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. 12. Thus, in the context of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have to examine as to whether aforesaid safeguards have been observed meticulously by the Detaining Authority who has passed the order of detention when the detenu was in custody. 13. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed after taking into account that accused was in custody. 13. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed after taking into account that accused was in custody. There has been no denial of the proposition of law that the order of detention can be passed in respect of a person who is already in custody in respect of a criminal case. However, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Huidrom Konungjao Vs. State of Manipur & Ors (2012) 7 SCC 181 , it was held that if such detention order is challenged, detaining authority ought to satisfy the court following facts: (i) the authority was fully aware of the fact that detenu was actually in custody; (ii) there was reliable materials before the said authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there is reliable possibility of release on bail and further on being released, he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to the public order. Further, it has been observed that in cases where this fact does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 14. In the light of the decision referred to above, if we examine the legality of the detention order, we would find that the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction that possibilities are there of the detenu being released but for recording such satisfaction no material is there, rather it is the figment of imagination of the detaining authority that since bail application has been moved, the detenu is likely to be released on bail. As such it can easily be said that such satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is not based on any material, rather it is imaginary one and thereby order of detention, its approval are not sustainable in the eye of law. 15. Thus, we do find that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority of likelihood of accused being released on bail is not based on any factual aspect and thereby order of detention being bad, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the detenu, Leimapokpam Rajendro Singh @ Ibungo, s/o L. Nando Singh of Ningombam Awang Leikai, PS Singjamei, is hereby directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 16. Consequently, the detenu, Leimapokpam Rajendro Singh @ Ibungo, s/o L. Nando Singh of Ningombam Awang Leikai, PS Singjamei, is hereby directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 16. Before parting with this order, it be recorded that earlier when we did find in other case that order of detention is being passed without having regard to the provisions of the Act and also of several decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicating therein the manner in which the order of detention be passed, we, after discussing the issue in details in context of different decisions of the Supreme Court, passed order for communicating the said order to the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police for their guidelines to be observed while passing the order of detention, we are constrained to say that it is being not adhered to by the detaining authority and therefore the matter needs to be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary for doing needful in the matter. Accordingly, copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Manipur. Thus, this application stands allowed.