JUDGMENT & ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong, (respondent no.2) whereby and whereunder respondent no.2 in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 passed the order of detention against the petitioner after being satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State as well as maintenance to public order it has become necessary to do so. 2. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed that the detenu joined the banned underground organisation named, as National Socialist Council Nagaland of Nagalim- IshakMuivah faction (“NSCN-IM” in short) in the month of August, 2005 at the instance of one Mr. Samuel Chiru S/S Kilonser of NSCN-IM. After joining the organisation, the detenu alongwith 149 cadres of NSCN-IM including 7(seven) female were imparted military training at Mt. Gilead Training Centre of NSCN-IM, Dimapur, Nagaland. After the training was over the detenu started working at the Monitoring Cell of NSCN-IM located at Charmile, Dimapur under the command of one Mr. Robert Rongmei of Loktak Project. In the month of March, 2007 the detenu was sent to Zuneboto Battalion, Nagaland and stayed there till August, 2011 during which course the detenu under the command of Lt. Col. Tokiho Sema started working. In course of time the detenu was promoted to the post of Self Styled Sgt. and then Sgt. Major and ultimately, to the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. In the month of August, 2011 the detenu was discharged from NSCN-IM. 3. After being discharged from NSCN-IM the detenu started normal life at home but again in the month of October, 2011 the detenu came into contact of one Mr. Zenchui Kamei Self Styled Chief of Army of the armed gang known as “Zeliangrong United Front (‘ZUF’ in short) a banned organisation and started working in ZUF as Self Styled Captain during which encounters took place in between the cadres of NSCN-IM and ZUF at Leishok village and also at Bhallok village for which two cases were registered as FIR No.2(10) 2011 Khoupum-PS u/s 302/326/400 of IPC & 25(1-B) Arms Act and FIR No.19(11)2013 Tamenglong PS u/s 307/400/302/326 of IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act. That apart the detenu attacked at the post of 6 IRB camp at Tupul Marang Ching on 06.02.2014 for which a case was registered as FIR No.10(2) 2014 u/s 447/307/400/506 of IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act. The detenu after indulging himself in the aforesaid acts started working since April, 2014 as in-charge of finance section of ZUF and was posted at Dolang during which the persons of ZUF cadres under the command of the detenu extorted huge amount of money from general public which was deposited to the higher authority of ZUF. The detenu went on committing such acts like resorting to firing in the public places, exploding bombs and extorting huge amount of money from the general public and a gave panic terror wave of general public which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. However, on 04.01.2015 the detenu was arrested by column of 8th Assam Rifles during which 7.62 mm pistol loaded with 4(four) live rounds in the magazine, TNT-200 gm. Mobile etc. were recovered. Thereupon the detenu was handed over to O.C-Patsoi- PS with a written report and seized articles. On the basis of which a case was registered as FIR No.2(1)2015 Patsoi-PS u/s 400/384 of IPC & 25(1-C) Arms Act as well as 5 of the Expl. Subs. Act and the case was subsequently transferred to the O.C Khoupum P.S where the case was lodged as FIR No.1(1)2015 Khoupum-PS u/s 400/384 of IPC & 25(1C) Arms Act & 5 of the Expl. Subs. Act. Thereupon he was remanded in the cases mentioned above. 5. On the aforesaid grounds the Detaining Authority after recording that the detenu after availing facilities of bail would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed the order of detention on 30.06.2015. 6. A copy of the said detention order was served along with the grounds of detention upon the detenu while he was lodged in Jail. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 10.07.2015. Subsequently it was confirmed by the State Government on 10.08.2015. The said orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 7. Mr. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 10.07.2015. Subsequently it was confirmed by the State Government on 10.08.2015. The said orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 7. Mr. Romendro Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did confine his argument with respect to only one ground, which is with respect to non-recording of the satisfaction by the Detaining Authority of possibility of the accused of being released on bail. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the order of detention was passed while the detenu was in custody but the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention never recorded its satisfaction that the detenu, an accused of a case in which bail application had been filed, is likely to be released on bail, rather, the Detaining Authority has only recorded that the detenu has filed bail application and wherever such satisfaction of the Detaining Authority of the detenu being likely to be released on bail, is not there that order of detention becomes bad in view of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India - Vrs - Paul Manickam & Anr, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 and also in a case of Kamarunissa Vrs - Union of India & Anr: (1991) 1 SCC 128 and therefore order of detention is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. 8. As against it, Mr.Y. Ashang, 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 facts that the detenu, an accused in the case, has filed an application, has recorded in the grounds of detention that the detenu having availed bail facilities would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the 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. Learned counsel submitted that the order of detention was passed after due consideration of the fact that possibility is there of the detenu being released on bail and that he would go on indulging himself continue involvement in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order after being released on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the order of detention was passed after due consideration of the fact that possibility is there of the detenu being released on bail and that he would go on indulging himself continue involvement in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order after being released on bail. Thus, it was submitted that order of detention never warrants to be quashed. 9. 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. 10. 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 deterent law, the law of preventive detention is to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, howsoever 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. ... 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 detenus.” 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.” 11. 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 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. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 13. 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. 14. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed on 02.09.2015 by the District Magistrate, Imphal West after being satisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980. Such order was passed while the detenu was in custody which the Detaining Authority was aware which would be evident from the extract of the order which reads as follows: * * * * And where, Iam satisfied from the police report that Mr.Phungneilur Sekho Chiru @ Alur (39 yrs.) S/o (l) Ashek Sekho Chiru of Dolang village, P.S Khoupum, District- Tamenglong Manipur who is now in judicial custody is likely to continue to act in manner of prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” 15. Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority of detenu committing the same activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is also there in para-4 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows: “4. That, in view of the tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being as a member of and armed gang namely Zeliangrong United Front (ZUf) and carrying out prejudicial activities such as threatening to the lives of Govt. Officials, general public by firing with Lethod bombs and extortion of huge amount of money from general public, disturbing public order affecting public tranquility, I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a member of the said gang would continue to indulge in the same activities which is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Hence, the application of normal criminal law against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, called for.” 16. Hence, the application of normal criminal law against you will not at all be effective to prevent you from the commission of further prejudicial activities. An alternative preventive measure is, therefore, called for.” 16. From the aforesaid paragraph extracted from the order of detention and also from the grounds of detention, it would appear that the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention did satisfy himself with respect to the fact that the detenu on being availing facilities of bail would continue to indulge in the same activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is one of the limb of clause (ii)(b) as indicated in para-10 of this order, but the Detaining Authority has never recorded his satisfaction with respect to clause(ii) (a) to the effect that there is every possibility of being released. Thus, one of the safeguards as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as indicated above have not been observed meticulously by the Detaining Authority as there appears to be observance of the safeguards as stipulated under clause (ii)(b) but the Detaining Authority is absolutely silent over clause (ii)(a) which relates to possibility of the accused being released. 17. Thus, we find that the Detaining Authority failed to record subjective satisfaction on the point that detenu is likely to be released on bail in near future in connection with a case in which he was taken into custody and therefore, order of detention, its approval and confirmation being bad are hereby quashed. Consequently the namely, Mr. Phungneilur Sekho Chiru @ Alur (39 yrs.) S/o (l) Ashek Sekho Chiru of Dolang village, P.S Khoupum, District- Tamenglong Manipur, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in another cases. Thus, writ petition stands allowed.