JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J.:-- [1] Heard Shri Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Shri B.R. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India. [2] The validity and correctness of the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 and the confirmation order dated 25-06-2021 issued by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur is under challenged in this writ petition. [3.1] The allegations as stated in the grounds of detention, in short, are that the petitioner is a resident of Kakching Lamkhai, Kakching District, Manipur and is involved in transportation of illegal drugs. He is the kingpin in the supply of WY tablets in Manipur by co-ordinating with suppliers from Moreh; transporters and sellers at Imphal. He was arrested in connection with two cases registered under FIR No.19(2)2020 TBL P.S. u/s 22(c)/60(3) & 29 ND & PS Act and FIR No. 23(3)2021 KCG P.S. u/s 22(c)/29 ND & PS Act read with 60(3) ND & PS Act. [3.2] The first case was registered when Shri Yengkhom Bikram Singh was arrested by a team of Thoubal Police Station on 06-02-2020 along with seizure of a total of 2,24,204 numbers of WY tablets weighing about 22.05 Kg. During the course of investigation, it was revealed by him that the said WY tablets were transported by him under the instruction of the petitioner. So far as the second case is concerned, it was registered when Shri Irengbam Somorjit Singh was arrested by a team of Kakching Police Station on 15-03-2021 along with seizure of WY tablets weighing a total of about 5 Kg from his possession. From his statement recorded by the police, it was revealed that the consignment of WY tablets which were seized by the police, was to be transported to Guwahati by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by a team of Kakching Police Station on 15-04-2021 and when he was interrogated, it was disclosed by the petitioner that he was the partner of Shri Irengbam Somorjit Singh in the transportation of WY tablets and that they had transported drugs in the past as well. While the petitioner was in custody, the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 was passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. While the petitioner was in custody, the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 was passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur. The grounds of detention were furnished to him on 29-04-2021 with the averment that the same were furnished to him after 8 (eight) days from the date of detention on account of the exceptional circumstances arising due to Covid-19 Pandemic. In the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in the near future and considering all his past activities, it was very likely that he would continue to act in the manner causing a threat to the society. The petitioner was also informed that he had the right to make representations to the Government of Manipur as well as the Central Government against the said order of detention. [4] Being aggrieved by the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 and the confirmation order dated 25-06-2021 passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning their legality on various grounds. [5] An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 reiterating the allegations as stated in the grounds of detention and in addition thereto, it has been stated that the sponsoring authority vide its letter dated 20-04-2021 furnished the reliable documents to the detaining authority for detention of the petitioner, on the basis of which the order of detention was issued by the detaining authority. It has further been stated that in order to make effective representation by the petitioner, the detaining authority formulated the grounds of detention in the form of a letter on 29-04-2021 in terms of the provisions of sub-section 3 of the Act. [6] During the course of hearing, Shri Ch. Ngongo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on two points-one, the detaining authority did not formulate the grounds of detention before passing the order of detention and two, the detaining authority did not indicate the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. [6] During the course of hearing, Shri Ch. Ngongo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on two points-one, the detaining authority did not formulate the grounds of detention before passing the order of detention and two, the detaining authority did not indicate the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. [7.1] As regards the first point, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has given much emphasis upon it to contend that before passing the order of detention, since the grounds of detention were not formulated by the detaining authority, the order of detention and the confirmation order were bad in law and are, accordingly, liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1951 SC 157 , The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar and AIR 1975 SC 1877 , Krishna Murari Aggarwala v. Union of India & ors. In the first case namely, Atma Ram Shridhar case, one of the questions was as to what should be stated in the grounds. While dealing with the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is obvious that the grounds for making the order, are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. These grounds, therefore, must be in existence when the order is made. By their very nature, the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detail recital of all the facts. Secondly, in respect of the expression “make an order directing that such person be detained” as contained in Section 3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Krishna Murari Aggarwala case, held that since the order is based on grounds to be served to the detenu, the order of detention could be passed only, if grounds are in existence and are prepared contemporaneously, otherwise the order of detention becomes purely illusory. [7.2] There is no and can be no dispute as the regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said two cases referred to hereinabove. In the present case, except stating that the grounds of detention were not formulated before passing the order of detention, no material had been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate it. In the present case, except stating that the grounds of detention were not formulated before passing the order of detention, no material had been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate it. In other words, a mere statement that the grounds of detention were not formulated before passing the order of detention, is not enough and such a statement shall be based on the materials because it is a matter of facts. However, relying upon the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the averment made in the writ petition in this regard has not been denied by the respondent No.1. Paragraph 8 of the affidavit consists of three sentences. In the first sentience, it has been emphatically stated that the sponsoring authority furnished the reliable documents vide its letter dated 18-04-2021, on the basis of which the order of detention was passed. That clearly shows that the materials were placed before the detaining authority prior to the passing of the order of detention by it. Whether the materials are sufficient or not for the detaining authority to arrive at its subjective satisfaction, is a different matter. The second sentence which is heavily relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the detaining authority formulated the grounds of detention in the form of a letter on 29-04-2021 in terms of the provisions of sub-section 3 of the Act. If the second sentence is to be read in isolation, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct. But paragraph 8 is to be read as a whole and the conjoint reading of these sentences makes it very clear that the materials were made available to the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority before the order of detention was passed and the grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner in the form of letter dated 29-04-2021. All that has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases, is that when the order of detention is passed, the grounds of detention must be in existence and that the grounds of detention are nothing but the conclusions of facts. All that has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases, is that when the order of detention is passed, the grounds of detention must be in existence and that the grounds of detention are nothing but the conclusions of facts. The grounds of detention are to be formulated on the basis of the materials, forming part of the facts, placed before it by the sponsoring authority which it did in the present case. Therefore, in the absence of any material to demonstrate that the grounds of detention were not formulated before passing the order of detention, the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. [8.1] So far as the second point is concerned, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the detaining authority did not indicate the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. On top of that, it has further been submitted by him that the fact that the petitioner was in custody, was not disclosed in the order of detention and therefore, the order of detention was illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. On perusal of the order of detention, it is seen that the contention of the counsel appearing for the petition is absolutely correct. It is nowhere mentioned in the order of detention that the petitioner was in custody and was likely to be released on bail. Therefore, the law laid down in (2003) 8 SCC 342 , Union of India v. Paul Manickam is attracted wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody, did not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on, the order would be vitiated. However, relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’be Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 531 , Baby Devassy Chully @ Bobby v. Union of India & ors, Shri Th. Vasum, learned Government Advocate submitted that non-mentioning in the order of detention that the petitioner was in custody and was likely to be released on bail, was not fatal, when the same were mentioned in the grounds of detention. Vasum, learned Government Advocate submitted that non-mentioning in the order of detention that the petitioner was in custody and was likely to be released on bail, was not fatal, when the same were mentioned in the grounds of detention. The facts of the Bobby Devassy Chully case are not exactly identical with that of the present case but he is correct to the extent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held therein that although the aspect that the detenu was in custody, had not been mentioned in the order of detention, the grounds of detention which formed part of the detention order, clearly mentioned about it. It may be noted that in Baby Devassy Chully case, the issue whether the detention order would be liable to be quashed for the reason that it did not mention that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, was not considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor was the decision rendered in Paul Manickam case referred to therein. [8.2] It is well settled that if a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventive detention should not be exercised. In other words, the preventive detention is not ordinarily needed when the detenu is already in custody. In Paul Manickam case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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, the detention order can be validly be made. In so far as the procedure to be adopted in case the detenu is already in custody is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The principles were set out as follows: even in the case of 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 the 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 felt essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid”. [8.3] In Amritlal v. Union Government, (2001) 1 SCC 341 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there must be cogent materials before the authority passing the detention order that there was likelihood of his release on bail. This decision has been referred to and relied upon in many subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the short question that arises for consideration by this Court, is as to whether there was any reliable material placed before the detaining authority, on the basis of which it could have recorded its satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no material at all before the detaining authority, on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction could be arrived at. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur & ors., (2012) 7 SCC 181 , it has been submitted by him that the detention order and the confirmation order are bad in law and are liable to be quashed by this Court. His contention appears to be correct for the reason that although it is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future, no cogent reasons had been assigned in support thereof. In Huidrom Konungjao Singh case, the materials which were relied by the detaining authority for detaining him, were two bail orders which had been granted to the accused in those cases and none of them had been the coaccused with him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because somebody else in similar cases had been granted bail, there could be no presumption that in the instant case, had the detenu applied for bail, he could have been released on bail. As the detenu had not moved bail application and no other co-accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of the Act was not permissible. The impugned order of detention was based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and could not be sustained in the eye of the law. As the detenu had not moved bail application and no other co-accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of the Act was not permissible. The impugned order of detention was based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and could not be sustained in the eye of the law. [9] The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are serious ones and since two cases having been registered in that regard, the State Government is expected to complete the investigation at an early date and to submit the charge sheet so that the petitioner can be put to trial. As has been observed hereinabove, the power of preventive detention can be exercised, even if the detenu is already in custody. But it may be noted that the exercise of such a power of preventive detention shall be subject to the procedure, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various decisions, being strictly followed and adhered to by the detaining authority. The State Government is expected to instruct the detaining authority to keep in mind carefully the technicalities while passing the detention order. The non-compliance with the aforesaid procedure will render the detention order to be illegal and this has exactly happened in the present case. [10] In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the order of detention dated 22-04-2021 and confirmation order dated 25-06-2021 passed by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur are quashed and set aside with the direction that Shri Sinam Shambhu @ Rakesh, 33 years, S/o Late Shri Kishori, a resident of Kakching Lamkhai, Kakching District, Manipur shall be released forthwith, if he is not required for any other case.