JUDGMENT & ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, (respondent no.1) whereby and whereunder respondent no.1 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 maintain 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 armed underground organisation namely, National Socialist Council Nagaland of Nagalim- Khaplang faction (“NSCN-K” in short) in the month of March, 1996 at the instance of one Mr. Temjing Ao of Mokochung, Nagaland an important member of NSCN-K. After joining the organisation, the detenu along with 139 cadres of NSCN-K including 8(eight) girls underwent basic training at Chumnu Training Centre, Mayanmar. After the training was over the detenu in the month of June, 1996 was made Chairman of Zeliangrong Region, NSCN-K and came to Manipur in order to look after the activities being carried out by the cadres of NSCN-K. In December, 1997 the detenu was promoted to the rank of Captain and continued to work as Chairman of Zeliangrong Region. On 10.04.2000 the detenu was arrested from Thangal Bazar in connection with a case registered as FIR No.64(4)2000 City P.S under Section 121/121-A of IPC, 25(1-B) Arms Act, 13 UA(P) Act & 5 Expl. Subs. Act. The detenu was remanded to judicial custody on 19.04.2000 in connection with the aforesaid case. After he was released on bail in the last week of April, 2000 the detenu stayed at home along with family members and led normal life but in the 1st week of January, 2001 the detenu left home and contacted Revenue Kilonser, Mr. Jelule Angami of Josoma village, Nagaland and started to work again as Chairman of Zeliangrong Region NSCN-K. The detenu started carrying out mobilisation work alongwith 6/7 cadres of NSCN-K by contacting village chiefs of different tribes. In the last part of 2002 he was transferred to Mokochung town and continued the same activities. However, he left that village for Zotsoma village, Nagaland (strong hold of the NSCN-K) and stayed there till June, 2008. In the last part of 2002 he was transferred to Mokochung town and continued the same activities. However, he left that village for Zotsoma village, Nagaland (strong hold of the NSCN-K) and stayed there till June, 2008. The detenu was promoted to the rank of Medical Kilonser and started looking after the activities of NSCN-K in carrying out mobilisation works organising public meetings at different places in Manipur and Nagaland. That apart, the detenu directed the cadres of NSCN-K operating at Imphal to extort money from general public particularly, Government offices. Acting upon his commands the cadres of NSCNK demanded huge amount of money from various persons working in different Departments of Manipur Government. In the month of November, 2009 they had demanded Rs. 2(two) cores from the Director of Food & Civil Supply, Manipur. The detenu was also a member of the central committee of NSCN-K. In the month of March, 2015 a general body meeting of NSCN-K was held at Myanmar. In that meeting it was decided to attack Indian security forces at different places in order to show the strength of NSCN-K as well as to extort huge amount of money from the Government officials. In the grounds of detention it has been further recorded that the aims and objectives of the NSCN-K was to establish a Sovereign State by unifying all the Naga inhabited areas in the North East of India and Northern Burma for forming Nagalim. In fulfilling the aims and objectives of the organisation they committed serious crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom at different parts of North Eastern States of India including Manipur. On 17.08.2015 a team of Special Cell/ Northern Range Sector-VI Rohini Delhi arrested the detenu in connection with Lamphel P.S under Section 179(12)2009 from a place near to India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road. At the time of arrest PAN card, one AMWAY card, ATM, Laptop and several Sims were seized. After his arrest, DCP Special Cell Delhi informed the S.P Imphal West regarding the arrest of the detenu. When the Imphal police reached at Delhi, the police on the basis of the warrant of arrest issued against the detenu took transit remand and brought to Imphal. 3. After his arrest, DCP Special Cell Delhi informed the S.P Imphal West regarding the arrest of the detenu. When the Imphal police reached at Delhi, the police on the basis of the warrant of arrest issued against the detenu took transit remand and brought to Imphal. 3. 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 02.09.2015. 4. 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 11.09.2015. Subsequently it was confirmed by the State Government on 22.10.2015. Having receipt of the detention order, the detenu submitted his representation on 03.10.2015, which was received by the District Magistrate. The order of detention, its approval and confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 5. Mr. Ashok 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. 6. 6. 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. Thus, it was submitted that order of detention never warrants to be quashed. 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 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, however technical, is mandatory and vital. To prevent misuse of this deterent 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 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.” 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 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. 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.” 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 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, I am satisfied from the police report that Mr. Nagmsinlung Panmei @ Ngamsin Panmei @ Asin Panmei @N. Panmei (53 yrs) S/o Mr. Gaibon Panmei @ Gaipu Panmei of Sumziuaum Village, P.S-Jalukie, District- Peren, Nagaland, A/P Lunkaijang Village, P.S Cachhar Assam who is now in Police custody, should be prevented from commission of prejudicial activities through an alternative preventive measure.” 13. 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. 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 your tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being as a member of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim-Khapalang faction (NSCN-K) in short)., I am satisfied that after having availed of bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being hard core member of the said organisation would continue to indulge in the same activities which are 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, immediately called for.” 14. 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. 15. 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 detenu, Mr. Nagmsinlung Panmei @ Ngamsin Panmei @ Asin Panmei @N. Panmei(53 yrs) S/o Mr. Consequently the detenu, Mr. Nagmsinlung Panmei @ Ngamsin Panmei @ Asin Panmei @N. Panmei(53 yrs) S/o Mr. Gaibon Panmei @ Gaipu Panmei of Sumziuaum Village, P.S-Jalukie, District- Peren, Nagaland, A/P Lunkaijang Village, P.S Cachhar Assam, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in another cases. Thus, writ petition stands allowed.