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 vs. 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 dated 17.02.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, 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 are that the detenu joined a banned organisation namely, Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPRAK) in the month of March, 2005 at the instance of one Shri Sanasam Tomba Singh an important member of PREPAK. After joining the organisation, he along with other members of the said organisation indulged in committing offences which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as security of the State. On account of that the detenu was arrested in connection with several cases and were released on bail. The detenu at one point of time had also been detained under National Security Act in the year 2007. However, after being released from detention, the detenu went to Nepal and contacted one Shri Longjam Subash @ Palliba an important member of PREPAK and continued to work for the organisation. In the last week of June, 2007 the detenue came back to Imphal and started again committing offences which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, after being released from detention, the detenu went to Nepal and contacted one Shri Longjam Subash @ Palliba an important member of PREPAK and continued to work for the organisation. In the last week of June, 2007 the detenue came back to Imphal and started again committing offences which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On 04.09.2013, the detenu along with two other members of PREPAK surrendered before Hon’ble the Chief Minister of Manipur and were sent to the camp of 6th IRB, Pangei but he kept one foreign made pistol within him. The detenu frequently used to come out from the camp after taking leave and indulged himself to carry out prejudicial activities. On 03.09. 2014 the detenu along with his associates had hijacked one DI Tata for which a case was lodged as Porompat P.S FIR No.256(9) 2014 under Sections 365/384/34 of the IPC. However, he was released on bail on 21.10.2104. Thereafter, he started living at home and doing sub-contract works by owning one Tata Tipper. On 28.07.2015, the detenu was found consuming alcohol along with his other associates and were shouting upon others. Since at the time curfew was imposed they were asked to leave that place but the detenu instead of leaving the place formed an unruly mob claiming themselves to be supporters of ILP (Inner Line Permit System) and made an attempt to set the police vehicles on fire and they also assaulted police personnel for which Sekmai P.S case No. 146(07) was registered under Sections 147/148/353/393/511/307/325/ 34 of the IPC. It has been further recorded in the grounds of detention that on 09.12.2015 he made an attempt on the lives of his driver and others for which Sekmai P.S case No. 311(12) 2015 was registered under Sections 307/326 IPC & 27 Arms Act. In that case the detenu was arrested and subsequently he was released on bail. On 14.01.2016, the detenu assaulted one Shri Kangujam Jiten Singh and his younger brother at the workshop of one Shri Ibungo Singh. At that time driver of the detenu came with Scorpio vehicle, whom the detenu assaulted for which a case was registered as Sekmai P.S Case No. 11(1)2016 under Sections 307/325/34 IPC and also under Section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act. Subsequently, he was arrested in connection with the said case and was remanded to the judicial custody. At that time driver of the detenu came with Scorpio vehicle, whom the detenu assaulted for which a case was registered as Sekmai P.S Case No. 11(1)2016 under Sections 307/325/34 IPC and also under Section 25(1-C) of the Arms Act. Subsequently, he was arrested in connection with the said case and was remanded to the judicial custody. In that case, bail application was filed. On such grounds, the respondent No.1, after recording that the detenu after availing bail facilities would continue to indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention on 17.02.2016. 4. A copy of the 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 28.02.2016. Having receipt of the detention order, the detenu submitted his representation on 22.02.2016, which was rejected by the District Magistrate on 24.02.2016. Subsequently, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 30.03.2016. The aforesaid orders of detention, its approval as well as confirmation have been challenged on several grounds. 5. Mr. Ch. Ngongo, 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. 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. 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 vs. 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 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. 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. Thus, at the cost of repetition, we may record that Detaining 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. 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: **** Whereas, Shri Huirongbam Iboyaima Singh (42 yrs.) has moved a bail application on 11.02.2016 in the court of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate first class, Imphal West-I in connection with FIR No.11(1) 2016 Singjamei P.S u/s 307/325/34 IPC & 25(1-C) A. Act as whereas, I am satisfied from the police report that Shri Huirongbam Iboyaima Singh (42 yrs.) S/o (L) Gouro Singh of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.S. Singjamei, District- Imphal West, Manipur who is now in judicial custody, is likely to resume activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in the likely event of his person being released on bail and that therefore, he should be prevented from commission of such 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: “6. That, in view of the tendencies and inclination reflected in the offences committed by you in the proximate past by being a member of the banned organisation, Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) and carrying out prejudicial activities such as use of arms to threaten the public, having in possession unauthorised arms, assault on Police, hijacking of vehicles, etc. I am satisfied that in the event of being released on bail, you would continue to indulge in similar activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and 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, Shri Huirongbam Iboyaima Singh (42 yrs.) S/o (L) Gouro Singh of Sinjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.S. Singjamei, DistrictImphal West, Manipur is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in another cases. Writ petition stands allowed.