JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondent as well as Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned A.S.G. appearing for the respondent No.3, Union of India. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.7.2016 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.09 of 2016 against the detenu Wahengbam Ramananda @ Luwangngamba @ Rousow 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 namely United Liberation Front (UNLF) as a member in Sept. 1994. After the detenu joined the said organization, he as well as others were imparted with basic military training. After getting training when the detenu came back, he started indulging himself in the activities which were prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and therefore he was arrested in a case in which he was admitted to bail. On several occasions, he was arrested and was granted bail. Subsequently, in the year 2007 detenu joined KCG (Lalumba fraction), a banned organization, and continued to carry out many prejudicial activities. He was taken into custody but was granted bail. In the year 2014 detention order had also been passed against him. In spite of that he continued to work for KCG (MC), aim and object of such organization was to secede the State of Manipur from the union of India and to create a sovereign and independent State of Manipur. For that purpose, the detenu started procuring arms and ammunitions through foreign countries and had been recruiting members from various communities. In pursuit of that objectives the detenu and his associates committed heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion and kidnapping for ransom etc. in different parts of Manipur. 4. On 27.5.2016 the detenu was apprehended by a police team of Imphal West while he was in possession of one 9.mm pistol with ammunitions which were seized. In pursuit of that objectives the detenu and his associates committed heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion and kidnapping for ransom etc. in different parts of Manipur. 4. On 27.5.2016 the detenu was apprehended by a police team of Imphal West while he was in possession of one 9.mm pistol with ammunitions which were seized. Detenu was handed over to OC Lamphal P.S. with a written report as well as seizure list on the basis of which Lamphal PS case No.98(5)2016 was registered u/s 20/38 of UA(P) Act, 25(1-C) A Act & 5 Expt. Subs. Act. Therefore, the detenu was formally arrested in connection with that case. 4.1. While the detenu was in custody, order of detention was passed on 13.7.2016 by 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 24.7.2016. The said order of detention and its approval have been challenged on several grounds. 5. However, Mr. Ashok Sharma, 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 did point it out that the detaining authority, after giving reference of the number of cases in which the accused had been granted bail on account of non filing of the charge sheet during statutory period, did record that the detenu is likely to be released on bail as it is expected that charge sheet would not be submitted within the statutory period which ground is never tenable as it was figment of imagination on the part of detaining authority that charge sheet would not be submitted in time and therefore the order of detention based on such ground being untenable is fit to be set aside. 6. As against this Mr. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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.. . . 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.” 9. 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. 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... 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.” 10. 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Further, it has been observed that in cases where this fact does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 13. In the light of the decision, if we examine the legality of the detention order, we would find that the detaining authority on the presumption that charge sheet would not be filed within the statutory period did record his satisfaction that there is every possibility of accused being released on bail, such satisfaction of possibility being there of accused getting bail should be based on reliable material as has been held in a case of Huidrom Konungjao (supra). But in the instant case, such satisfaction is not based on any material, rather it can be said to be imaginary and thereby order of detention and its approval are not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. Thus, we do find that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority of likelihood of the 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 Wahengbam Ramananda @ Luwangngamba @ Rousow s/o (L) W. Biren Singh of Kontha Ahallup Makha Leikai, PS Heingang, is hereby directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 15. Before parting with this order, it be recorded that earlier when we did find in another case that order of detention is being passed without having regard to the provisions of the Act and also of several decisions rendered 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.