JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.7.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No.1, whereby and whereunder the respondent No1, in exercise of power conferred under sub section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, passed the order of detention in Cril.NSA/No.12/2016 against the detenu namely Senjam Nongdrenkhomba Singh 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 order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined the armed insurgent organization namely United National Liberation Front (UNLF) as a Member in the year 1999. After the detenu joined the said organization, he as well as others were imparted with basic military training in Myanmar. After getting training when the detenu came back to Manipur, he started indulging himself in the activities such as mobilization of work, extortion of money from general public, transportation of arms and ammunitions from one place to another and other activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On account of that, he was arrested in connection with Bishunpur case No.1(1) 2002 registered u/s 121/121-A of the IPC and also u/s 13 UA(P) A.Act. However, he was released on bail subsequently. After the detenu was released on bail, he again started working for the organization and therefore he was arrested in connection with Moreh PS Case No.32(6)02 registered u/s 10(13) UA (P) A Act. The detenu was subsequently released on bail. After being released on bail, the detenu taking advantage of being member of UNLF organization, collected Rs.70 lakhs from the youths who were seeking Government jobs. After collecting money, he left Manipur and settled at Simla where he completed 6(six) months’ Computer course and contacted foreign agency. However, detenu was arrested at Simla in connection with one case. Thereupon, he was taken on remand in connection with Imphal PS Case No.173(6)04 and was remanded to judicial custody. After collecting money, he left Manipur and settled at Simla where he completed 6(six) months’ Computer course and contacted foreign agency. However, detenu was arrested at Simla in connection with one case. Thereupon, he was taken on remand in connection with Imphal PS Case No.173(6)04 and was remanded to judicial custody. While the detenu was at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, he came in contact with leaders of KCP including Thokchom Nando @ M.K.Mangang and others and started working for KCP organization whereby he used to send ransom notes through email. He even planned for kidnapping of two officers of RIMS who had refused to pay the extortion money. The said plan was executed by members of KCP organization. On 25.12.2008 the detenu was transferred to Tihar Jail where he met two leaders of underground organization, KCP. Subsequently, he was sent to Jail at Simla. On being released, the detenu came to Manipur and started doing work for the said organization, KCP. He even recruited two persons and utilized their services in extortion of money from general public. The detenu sent extortion notes to several private Hospitals and Clinics of the Doctors and had succeeded in extorting money from some of them. In March, 2016 the detenu had kept one 9mm pistol concealed at the house of Kshetrimayum Lokendro Singh. On 1.4.2016 the detenu was apprehended by CDPO Imphal West from Imphal Airport complex. On being searched several incriminating articles including Seal and Letter Head of KCP were seized and further at his instance one 9 mm pistol was recovered form the house of said Lokendro Singh. Thereupon, Imphal West police handed over the custody of the detenu along with the seized articles to Singjamei PS who registered a case as SJM PS case No.60(4)16 and then effected the arrest of the detenu who subsequently was remanded to police custody and judicial custody. 4. While the detenu was in custody in connection with the aforesaid case, order of detention was passed on 15.7.2016 after recording that the detenu is acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order who is likely to be released on bail. Said order of detention, its approval and confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 4. While the detenu was in custody in connection with the aforesaid case, order of detention was passed on 15.7.2016 after recording that the detenu is acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order who is likely to be released on bail. Said order of detention, its approval and confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner did confine his argument with respect to only one ground which is with regard to materials being absent for recording satisfaction by the detaining authority that there is every possibility of detenu being released on bail and therefore any order of detention passed on such satisfaction without having any basis would suffer from illegality. In this regard, it was further submitted that in the grounds of detention, it has been recorded that since in similar cases bails are being granted, there is every possibility of detenu being released on bail but instances of similar cases have never been given so as to find out as to whether satisfaction was based on any material or it is passed on ipse dixit ground. 5. As against this Mr.Vashum, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that from the order of detention it would appear that the detaining authority, after having taken notice of the fact that in similar cases bails are being granted by the Courts, it was recorded that it is quite likely that detenu would also be released on bail and would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Only after recording such satisfaction, order of detention has been passed which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 6. 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. 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. 7. 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 –v- 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-Vrs – 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.” 8. 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.” 8. 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..... The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India: (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC(Cri) 88. 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed after taking into account that accused was in custody. 11. 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. 12. In the light of the decision, if we examine the legality of detention order, we would find that the detaining authority, though has recorded that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail, as bails are being granted in similar nature of cases but no instance are there to find out as to whether bails are being granted in similar nature of cases or not. In that view of the matter, we can easily say that such satisfaction was without there being any material and therefore the impugned order of detention can be said to have been passed on some ipse dixit ground which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. Thus, we do find that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority 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 namely Senjam Nongdrenkhomba Singh, s/o (L) S. Modhu Singh, Taothong Lamkhai Lamshang, P/s Lamshang is directed to be released forthwith if not otherwise wanted in connection with any other case. This writ petition stands allowed.