JUDGMENT AND ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, respondent No.2, whereby and where under 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. 8 of 2016 against the detenu namely Mr. Letkhogin Vaiphei after recording 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. 2. The grounds on which order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined the armed gang namely Kuki National Front-Democrates faction (KNF-D)/Tribal Revolutionary Army (TRA) as a member in the month of January, 2016. Thereupon, he, on coming to contact of several members of said organization, started extorting money from various Government employees, contractors etc. residing within the area of Churachandpur district as well as Sadar hills by delivering extortion letters. On 26.4.2016 the detenu and his associates on the point of a pistol kidnapped one Thangsianbiak @ Biabiak, PRO to one MLA and demanded Rs. 70 lakhs as ransom by sending sms through a mobile. For this occurrence, a case was lodged with the Lamphel P.S. which was registered as Lamphel P.S. case No.77(4)16 u/s 364 A of the IPC. In course of investigation, said case was transferred to Imphal P.S. where it was registered as Imphal PS Case No.107(5)16 U/s 364-A of the IPC. While negotiation was going on with respect to amount of ransom to be paid, the detenu and others kidnapped one excavator, JCB driver, namely Khumanthem Tondonba Singh and demanded Rs. 70 lakhs. For the said occurrence, a case was registered as Churachandpur PS Case No.24(5)16 u/s 400/365/34 of the IPC and 25-IC of the Arms Act. After negotiation the detenu and his associates collected Rs. 8 lakhs for release of said driver. Out of the said amount Rs. 4,50,000/- was kept by the detenu and the remaining amount was handed over to Douthanglen Kipgen. On 13.5.2016 the detenu at the instance of Lunliansiam vaiphei handed over Rs. 4,47,00/- to Mrs. Tingngaineng Vaiphei so that the same be handed over to Lunliansiam Vaiphei. 8 lakhs for release of said driver. Out of the said amount Rs. 4,50,000/- was kept by the detenu and the remaining amount was handed over to Douthanglen Kipgen. On 13.5.2016 the detenu at the instance of Lunliansiam vaiphei handed over Rs. 4,47,00/- to Mrs. Tingngaineng Vaiphei so that the same be handed over to Lunliansiam Vaiphei. On 14.5.2016 the detenu was arrested by Imphal West police who handed over to the officer in-charge of Imphal PS with a written report and thereupon the detenu was arrested in connection with a case registered as Imphal PS Case No.107(5)16 registered u/s 364A of IPC. Subsequently the detenu was remanded other cases. 3. On such ground, the respondent No.2, after recording that detenu is going on in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed order of detention on 21.7.2016 which was approved on 1.8.2016. The aforesaid order of detention and its approval have been challenged on several grounds. 4. However, Mr. Sanajaoba, 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 the satisfaction by the detaining authority that there is every possibility of detenu being released on bail. In this regard, it was pointed out that it has been recorded that there has been likelihood of detenu being released on bail as one Md. Atao Rahaman @ Atabur @ Md. Ataur Rahaman, an accused in a case registered u/s 121/121-A of the IPC, and also u/s 20/16 1- B of UA(P) Act as well as u/s 25(1)(a) (1-B) A Act and also u/s 4/5 Expl.Subs. Act, has been released on bail by the court. But such release of the accused on bail has nothing to do with the instant matter as the petitioner has neither been made accused in a case in which Md. Atao Rahaman has been admitted to bail nor Md. Act, has been released on bail by the court. But such release of the accused on bail has nothing to do with the instant matter as the petitioner has neither been made accused in a case in which Md. Atao Rahaman has been admitted to bail nor Md. Atao Rahaman has been made accused in a case in which the detenu has been booked in and thereby order of detention can be said to have been passed on ipse dixit ground and thereby order of detention is fit to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 wherein their Lordships, after noticing similar facts as has been stated above, had been pleased to hold that the detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the ground of detention which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. As against this Ms. L. Monomala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that from the order of detention it would appear that the Detaining Authority after 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. 6. 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. 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 v. 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." 7. Keeping in view the said principle, the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Union of India v. 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 detenue 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. 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. 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." 8. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 v. 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. 11. Further, it has been observed that in cases where this fact does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 12. 11. 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 legality of the detention order, we would find that the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail on account of the fact that one of the persons accused in connection with other case, not related in any manner with the instant case, has been enlarged on bail but granting bail had nothing to do with the instant case as neither this detenu was accused in that case in which the accused has been granted bail nor that person is an accused in the instant case in which detenu was taken into custody and moreover nature of offence alleged is also quite distinctive and therefore the ground of which the satisfaction was recorded can be said to be ipse dixit and thereby order of detention is fit to be set aside in view of the decision rendered in the case of Huidrom Konungjao (supra). 13. Thus, we do find that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority of likelihood of the accused being released on bail is not based on any factual aspect and thereby the order of detention and its approval being bad are hereby quashed. Consequently, detenu namely Mr. Letkhogin Vaiphei, s/o Mr. Nehthang Vaiphei of Salam Padong Village, Sadar Hills East, PS Yairipok, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. This writ petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.