JUDGMENT & ORDER : R.R.Prasad, J. At the outset, it be stated that when the case was called out, Mr. A. Vashum, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the State respondents sought for time for filing affidavit-in-opposition which we refused for the reason that earlier three weeks’ time had been given for filing affidavit-in-opposition but it could not be filed. However, granting of time for filing affidavit-in-opposition would not serve any purpose as the order which we are contemplating to pass is based on the decision rendered in the case of Union of India Vrs. Paul Manickam & Anr. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 which decision has been followed by this Court in number of the cases. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order 04.02.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Tamenglong, respondent No.1 whereby and whereunder respondent No.1, in exercise of 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 and to the maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to do so. 3. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed that the detenu in the year 2004 had joined underground organisation namely, National Socialist Council of NagalimIsac/MUivah faction (NSCN-IM). After joining the said organisation, the detenu along with 400 other persons were imparted with basic military training at Mount Gilead Training Centre of NSCN-IM, Nagaland, After completion of the training the detenu was posted as Office Assistant in the office of C.A.O(Central Administrative Officer) Zeliangrong Region. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at different camps of NSCN-IM. On 24.03.2008, the detenu was arrested along with his two other associates by CDO- Bishnupur in connection with the case bearing Loktak P.S No.5(3) 2008 registered under Sections 384/400/506 of the IPC and also under Section 25(1C) of the Arms Act and remanded to jail custody on 29.03.2008. In the 1st week of May, 2008 the detenu was released on bail. After being released on bail the detenu stayed at home and started leading normal life but it did not last long. In the 1st week of May, 2008 the detenu was released on bail. After being released on bail the detenu stayed at home and started leading normal life but it did not last long. The detenu in the month of July, 2008 rejoined NSCN-IM and resumed to work as Regional Secretary of Zeliangrong Region during which period the detenu along with his associates used to collect taxes from the trucks transporting forest products. In the month of December, 2010, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Self Styled Under Secretary of Finance Department. In course of time, the detenu deserted NSCM-IM. After deserting the said organisation the detenu formed a new organisation namely, Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF). For the said organisation, youngsters were recruited. In order to achieve its objective which was anti-national, the detenu along with the others committed series of heinous crime such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, kidnapping for ransom and also attacked to the security forces in different parts of Manipur. In order to strengthen the organisation the detenu and his associates carried out mobilisation works. Members of the organisation under the supervision of the detenu started extorting money from the vehicles plying along the NH No.37 in order to raise fund. While doing so they committed number of offences for which cases were instituted reference of which have been given in the grounds of detention. On 23.03.2015, Officer-in-charge Khoupum P.S received a Fax Message regarding the arrest of the detenu in connection with Hatigaon PS Case No.349/15 U/s 120 (B) 120 (B)/121/122 of the IPC. On receipt of the information O.C Khoupum P.S obtained production warrant from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate- Tamenglong in connection with case bearing Khoupum P.S 1(1)2012 registered under Sections 302/326/400 of the IPC. Subsequently, the detenu was arrested and was remanded to jail custody. He was also remanded in connection with other cases pending against him. On such grounds, the respondent No.1, after recording that the detenu after availing bail facilities would continue to indulge in the same activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention on 04.02.2016. 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 16.02.2016. 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 16.02.2016. Having receipt of the detention order, the detenu submitted his representation on 16.02.2016. Subsequently, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 31.03.2016. The aforesaid orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 5. Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, 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 to the effect that the possibility is there of the accused 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 after being released on bail would continue to indulge himself in committing prejudicial activities 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, 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 would be bad and therefore order of detention is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. 6. As against it Mr. A. 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 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. 7. 7. It goes without saying that in a case of preventive 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 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, 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 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.” 10. Thus, at the cost of repetition, we may record that Authority 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 passing the order of detention when the detenu was in custody. 12. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed on 11.11.2015 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. 12. As we have said earlier that the detention order was passed on 11.11.2015 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 whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Mr. Jenchui Kamei Khanghiamngampou Karianglinpou @ (38 yrs.) S/o Mr. @ Thambou Kamei of Taolingpung Village/Namkaolong, Khoupum Valley, 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.” 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: “5. That, in view of the tendencies and inclination reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being a member of an underground organisation, 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 availing bail facilities and becoming a free person, you being a 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, but the Detaining Authority has never recorded on being satisfied that there is every possibility of being released. Thus, 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 2(b) whereas the Detaining Authority is absolutely silent over clause 2(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 first link of the issue, namely that detenu was likely to be released on bail in near future in connection with the offence in which he was arrested and thereby order of detention being bad is hereby quashed. Consequently the detenu namely, Mr. Jenchui Kamei @ Khanghiamngampou (38 yrs.) S/o Mr. Karianglinpou @ Thambou Kamei of Taolingpung Village/Namkaolong, Khoupum Valley, P.S- Khoupum, DistrictTamenglong is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in another cases. Writ petition stands allowed.