JUDGMENT & ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No.2, whereby and whereunder the respondent No.2, 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.3 of 2016 against the detenu, Irom Boy Singh after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in the manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to do so. 2. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined the armed insurgent group, Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) as a member in the later part of the year, 2015. The aim and object of the said organization is to secede the State of Manipur from the Union of India and to create an independent sovereign State of Manipur. In order to achieve its objective, the organisation started procuring arms and ammunitions from foreign countries and recruiting youngsters from various communities of Manipur. The members of the organisation including the detenu committed series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom in different parts of the State. The detenu along with others did those acts under the direction of one Bibikanta Singh. In the early part of year 2016 the detenu recruited one L. Somokanta Singh so that he may extort money in Lamphel Sanakeithel area. Thereupon, the detenu as well as said Somokanta Singh started extorting money from general public located at Lamphel Sanakeithel area. Besides that the detenu delivered extortion letter to the general public, businessmen, Govt officials located in that area and even extended threat to public through mobile to pay the extortion money. On 4.4.2016 said Somokanta Singh under the direction of the detenu planted and exploded a bomb at the gate of one Shri Th. Bishambor Singh. On account of that Imphal PS case No.80(4)16 was registered u/s 307/506/34 IPC and also u/s 3 of the Expl. Subs. Act as well as u/s 16/20 of UA(P)A. Act. On 6.4.2016 the detenu was arrested in connection with aforesaid case and was remanded to judicial custody. 3. Bishambor Singh. On account of that Imphal PS case No.80(4)16 was registered u/s 307/506/34 IPC and also u/s 3 of the Expl. Subs. Act as well as u/s 16/20 of UA(P)A. Act. On 6.4.2016 the detenu was arrested in connection with aforesaid case and was remanded to judicial custody. 3. While the detenu was in custody in connection with aforesaid case, order of detention was passed on 31.5.2016 after recording that the detenu is acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Said order of detention was approved by the Government on 10.6.2016 and subsequently it was confirmed on 13.7.2016. The said order of detention, its approval and confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 4. However, Mr. Suresh, learned counsel appearing 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 is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside. 5. As against this Ms L. Manomala, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that from the order of detention, it would appear that the detaining authority, after being satisfied that detenu would be released on bail and would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the order 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. 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. 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. Keeping in view the said principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Union of India Vs. 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 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 decisions, if we examine the legality of the detention order, we would find that the detaining authority has recorded that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail but that satisfaction is not based on any material on account of which the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu would be granted bail. In such situation, we can easily say that such satisfaction was without there being any material whatsoever and hence order of detention 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, Irom Boy Singh, s/o (late) L. Iboyaima Singh of Lamphel Sanakeithel, PS Imphal is directed to be released forthwith if not otherwise wanted in connection with any other case. This writ petition stands allowed.