JUDGMENT AND ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Senapati, respondent No.1, whereby and where under the 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 in Cril/NSA/C/25/16 against the detenu namely Lunminlen Haokip of Keithelmanbi village. 2. The grounds on which the order of detention was passed are that the detenu joined the armed organization namely Thadou Peoples' Liberation Army (TPLA in short) as a member in the second week of August, 2015. The aims and objectives of the said organization is to create an independent autonomous State within or outside Manipur by amalgamating all the Thadou inhabitants of Manipur and outside of the State. For the said purpose the said organization started procuring arms and ammunitions through foreign country and recruited youngsters from Kuki communities. To achieve the said objective the members of the organization committed series of heinous crimes such as murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion and kidnapping for ransom etc. in different parts of Manipur. On 29.8.2015 the detenu was nominated as self styled General Secretary in a general body meeting. Being the General Secretary of the said organization, the detenu started looking after the activities being carried out by the cadre of TPLA such as extortion of huge amount from general public, procuring arms and ammunition from foreign country to wage war against the Government of India as well as Manipur. In the month of Sept.2015, TPLA activist supported bund call of which was given by UNC along NH-2. During which the activists of TPLA at the command of the detenu put one Tata Truck on fire for which a case was registered as FIR case No.33(09)15 IPS u/s 436/400/34 and 25(1-C) A Act. In course of time the activists of said organization at the instance of detenu kidnapped one truck driver for ransom for which a case was registered as FIR No. 42(10)16 KPI PS u/s 400/364-A IPC & 25(1-B)A. Act. In course of time the activists of said organization at the instance of detenu kidnapped one truck driver for ransom for which a case was registered as FIR No. 42(10)16 KPI PS u/s 400/364-A IPC & 25(1-B)A. Act. On 4.11.2016 when the detenu was apprehended by a column of 25th Assam Rifles the detenu was found in possession of 9mm pistol as well as ammunitions and also other materials which were seized and those seized articles were given to O/C, Imphal P.S. along with the written report on the basis of which a case was registered as FIR No.337(11)16 IPS u/s 400 of IPC as well as 25(1-C) A. Act and also u/s 4 of the Expl. Sub. Act. During investigation, it was found that the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Kangpokpi police and thereby case was registered as FIR Case No.43(11) 16 KPI in which case the detenu was taken into custody. Subsequently he was remanded to judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid other cases. 3. On such grounds the respondent No.1, after recording that the detenu would be indulging himself in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the order of detention on 19.11.2016 which was approved on 29.11.2016. The aforesaid order of detention and its approval have been challenged on several grounds. 4. However, Samarjit, 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. The aforesaid order of detention and its approval have been challenged on several grounds. 4. However, Samarjit, 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 persons involved in similar cases have been released on bail by the court but no reference is there relating to the person or even a case in which the accused person have been admitted to bail and therefore it can easily be said that the order of detention has 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 Mr. Vashum, learned Addl G.A. appearing for the State submits that the detaining authority, after being satisfied that the detenu is acting in the manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, has passed the order of detention which never warrants to be interfered with. 6. It be stated 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. 7. 7. In this regard, we may refer to a decision rendered in case of Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342 laying down the requirements to be observed by the detaining authority passing the 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." 8. The same principle has been reiterated in a case of Huidrom Konungjao v. State of Manipur & Ors (2012) 7 SCC 181 wherein it has been held that if such detention order is challenged, the 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. Further, it has been observed that in cases where this fact does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 9. Further, it has been observed that in cases where this fact does not exist, the detention order would stand vitiated. 9. 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 in similar nature of cases accused are being released on bail, but the detaining authority while coming to such conclusion, has not referred to either name of the person or even the case in which the persons have been admitted to bail. In absence of those facts, the order of detention can certainly be said to have been passed on mere ipse dixit ground which is not sustainable in law in view of the decision referred to above and accordingly it is set aside. 10. Thus, we do find that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority of likelihood of 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. Lunminlen Haokip, s/o Mr. Heigin Haokip of Keithelmanbi village, PS Kangpokpi, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. This writ petition stands disposed of.