JUDGMENT : S. Hukato Swu, J. 1. The present writ petition filed under 226 of the Constitution for issuance of habeas corpus is filed for release of the detenu Abel Chishi SS Tatar NSCN-K (Khango & Isak) of Kiyekhu Village PO/PS-Zunheboto. 2. The petitioner is represented by Ms. Mika H Aye and the State is represented by Mr. K. Angami, learned P.P. 3. Facts leading to filing of the present writ petition for issuance of habeas corpus is that on 25-02-2021, the detenue was apprehended by the 1st (LH) Battalion Assam Rifles Personnel at Jail Colony, Kohima on allegation of extortion. Case was registered with the South Police Station being 0002/21 under Section 384 IPC read with 7 NSR 1962. The case was registered as G.R. No. 15 of 2021. Bail application was moved before the learned CJM, Kohima on 14-04-2021 and was rejected on the same day and another bail application was filed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima but again the same was rejected by an order dated 19-4-2021 respectively. 4. By an order dated 22-04-2021, the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate Kohima passed the detention order under Section 3(3) of the NSA. The said detention order was approved by the State Government on 28-04-2021. Thereafter, the detenue filed representation before the State Government on 29-04-2021 seeking revocation of the detention order however, the representation was rejected. 5. The petitioner has challenged the detention order of the detenue on the ground that the detention order suffers from the following infirmities:- (1) The detention order dated 22-04-2021 and the approval order dated 28-04-2021 cannot stand the test of law. It has been argued that the detaining authority prior to passing a detention order has to be satisfied that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in detention (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention (iii) that the detenue is likely to be released from the custody (iv) that in the event the detenue is released he would indulge in prejudicial activities which would cause law and order and social disorder which are unhealthy for the society (v) that the detaining authority should satisfy itself that the general law is not sufficient to deal with the issue and there was necessity in resorting to special law. 6. Learned counsel Ms. 6. Learned counsel Ms. Mika submits that the above conditions are required to be satisfied by the detaining authority to take recourse to preventive detention. She has placed reliance upon several rulings of the Apex Court and also the High Court for a preventive detention on the above referred issues which has to be considered by the detaining authority. She has relied upon the case of T.V. Savanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 664 wherein, the Apex Court in para 14 has ruled that: "14. We are satisfied that for the same reasons the order of detention cannot be upheld in this case. The bail applications moved by the appellant had been rejected by the courts and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is merely the ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. Furthermore, in the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 at para 27 the Apex Court has ruled as under:- "27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed." 7. Relying upon these two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the two bail applications moved by the detenue has been rejected and the detenue is still languishing in jail with no bail application pending before any court. Relying upon these two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the two bail applications moved by the detenue has been rejected and the detenue is still languishing in jail with no bail application pending before any court. Going by the decisions of the Apex Court in these two rulings, learned counsel submits that the preventive detention order passed by the detaining authority in the instant case has failed the test of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 , the Apex Court at para 26 has observed that:- "26. What emerges from these rulings is that, there must be a reasonable basis for the detention order, and there must be material to support the same. The Court is entitled to scrutinize the material relied upon by the Authority in coming to its conclusion, and accordingly determine if there is an objective basis for the subjective satisfaction. The subjective satisfaction must be two fold. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and the authority must be further satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from so acting." 9. Again in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and Others, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 , the Apex Court has held at para 21 as under:- "21. "The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities." 10. Bearing in mind the above two rulings of the Apex Court, learned counsel submits that there is no materials on records which would convince the detaining authority to draw a conclusion that the detenue would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the peace and harmony of the society at large. Therefore, she argued that the detention order is not in keeping with the judicial pronouncement passed by the Apex Court. 11. Again while exercising preventive detention order, the question to be asked by the detaining authority is whether ordinary law of the land was sufficient to deal with the situation? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the order will be illegal. As decided in the case of Rekha (supra), in the instant case, it is a matter of extortion which can be addressed by recourse to ordinary law of the land and does not demand the rigour of preventive law of detention. Keeping in mind that the detenu who is a member of the NSCN-K are in active peace process with the Government therefore, they could not be equated with terrorist or such organization who are destructive elements of society. There is no arms seized from the possession of the detenue nor any statement made that the detenue is indulging in taxation by threatening citizens. In view of the fact that the matter can be dealt with by ordinary law of the land as is observed by learned coordinate Bench in the case of Ngachanbam Kasar vs. State of Nagaland and Others, reported in 2017 (2) GLT 499 wherein, it has been observed at para 10:- "10. In view of the fact that the matter can be dealt with by ordinary law of the land as is observed by learned coordinate Bench in the case of Ngachanbam Kasar vs. State of Nagaland and Others, reported in 2017 (2) GLT 499 wherein, it has been observed at para 10:- "10. Considering the charge against the accused in the FIR and the facts and circumstances under which the detenue was arrested, I am of the opinion that the detenue could have been dealt with effectively under the normal laws if the investigating agency is serious and sincere enough to do so. It may be true that rampant extortion by different unlawful organizations might have disturbed the peace and tranquility of the individuals by and large but such situation cannot be described as disturbance of public order. The law enforcing machineries would do better if they tighten their belts and act to the call of their duties." 12. Having thus observed by coordinate Bench of this Court, relief was given to the detenue. Ordinary law can address the issue of extortion although we are all in admittance that the society is adversely affected because of taxation, an offence committed by different groups of undergrounds. 13. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention order dated 22-04-2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Kohima under Section 3 (3) of the NSA and the approval order passed by the State Government vide order dated 28-04-2021 does not stand the test of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Learned P.P. for the State Mr. K. Angami countering to the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of detention and the subjective satisfaction as discussed has been contained in the proposal for detention, on the ground of detention and also the schedule to the ground of detention passed by the District Magistrate. The detenue is a member of an underground organization NSCN-K and from his possession was seized the following items:-(1) 9 Nos of extortion slips (2) hand written letter demanding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from BSNL office (3) Cash Rs. The detenue is a member of an underground organization NSCN-K and from his possession was seized the following items:-(1) 9 Nos of extortion slips (2) hand written letter demanding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from BSNL office (3) Cash Rs. 2000/- (4) 10 Nos of letter head of NSCN (K) (5) 50 Nos of blank extortion slips with 31 Nos of counter foil with 19 without counter foil (6) 1 No of Android mobile phone (Vivo) Assignment letter of NSCN (K), 1 No of letter of appointment were seized from his possession. 15. From the grounds of detention referred by the District Magistrate which is self explanatory one can understand that there was subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority that the detenue would further indulge in extortion activities and also there is apprehension that he would be released on bail. The faction to which the detenue belongs is a powerful faction having sufficient resources. The grounds for detention which will give better picture of the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority is reproduced for clarity:- "GROUNDS OF DETENTION Abel Chishi (46 yrs) S/O-Kihokhu, Vill-Kiyekhu, PO/PS-Zunheboto, Dist-Zunheboto, P/Add-Agri Forest Colony Kohima Ref: Kohima South PS C/No. 0002/2021 U/S. 384 IPC R/W 7 NSR 62. 1. You SS. Tatar Abel Chishi are an active member of NSCN (K2) (Khango & Isak) in the rank of SS Tatar 2. You admitted to extortion money with demand slips from the mobile shops, stores and household utensils shops at Jail colony Kohima and PR Hill Kohima in the name of NSCN (K2), which proves your involvement in extortion activities in and around the State capital 3. You are involved in extortion activities in and around Kohima and also within the State of Nagaland, which is a direct contravention to the wishes and aspirations of the citizens of the State 4. There has been a huge public outcry regarding rampant extortion by various underground groups in the State and his activities are detrimental to the economy, security and peace in the society 5. You at large (if Bailed) will be a threat to the peace and security of the State of Nagaland, and there is likelihood of the accused committing breach of peace and tranquility of the State thereby endangering the peaceful existence of the citizens. You at large (if Bailed) will be a threat to the peace and security of the State of Nagaland, and there is likelihood of the accused committing breach of peace and tranquility of the State thereby endangering the peaceful existence of the citizens. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the said Act, the undersigned hereby inform you that the said detention order has been made against you for disturbing the maintenance of public safety and order under:- (a) Security of the State of Nagaland and (b) Maintenance of public safety and order The particulars made against you are specified in the Schedule attached. You are also informed that you have a right to make a representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and State Government through the concerned Jail authorities. You also have a right to claim a personal hearing before the Advisory Board constituted by the State Government under the aforesaid Act. Enclosures: All relevant documents to the case. (GREGORY THEJAWELIE) NCS District Magistrate Kohima, Nagaland" 16. Learned PP submits that there is no doubt that the detenue would further indulge in extortion considering that he was assigned for tax collection by the NSCN-K and also for the fact that demand slips and pads were recovered from his possession. All these hard evidence is a proof that the detenue would continue to indulge in extortion activities if he is released on bail. Learned PP has therefore argued that there has been no irregularities committed by the detaining authority and the State Government for approving the detention order. The petition therefore has no merit. 17. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 18. A challenge of the detention orders would mostly be on the ground of irregularities in the procedures. However, in the present case, there is no challenge on ground of procedural irregularities or delay as provided under the NSA. The issue of irregularities in the detention is directed towards the issue of subjective satisfaction which is the imminence of the detenue going on bail and also that the detenue would further indulge in prejudicial activities which would disturb the social peace and order if released on bail. The next issue which has been raised is with respect to the question whether under the present facts and circumstances the issue can be addressed by ordinary law. 19. The next issue which has been raised is with respect to the question whether under the present facts and circumstances the issue can be addressed by ordinary law. 19. On the issue of the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail it can be considered solely on the materials placed before the Court. We are guided by the principle that is laid down by the Apex Court and also the High Court wherein it has been pronounced that the apprehension/imminence of the detenue going on bail must be something which is supported by materials placed before the court as ruled in the case of K.K. Saravana Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 89 wherein at para 25 the Apex Court has held as under:- "25. Mr. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the detenu submitted that the detenu was in jail at the time when the detention order was passed. His three bail applications were rejected. Since there was no bail application pending, therefore, there was no imminent possibility of his being released by the court. The detenu's coming out on bail was merely ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. Furthermore, in the case of Vahne Mate vs. State of Manipur & Others, reported in 2018 (1) GLT (MN) 347 at para 5, the Division Bench of the Manipur High Court observed that: "We have also noted that nothing is mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioners husband that the petitioner who was already detained under in connection with FIR Case No. 2(01)2017 Sagolmang PS under section 364-A/365 & 34 IPC had filed any application for release on bail and as such, we are of the view that in absence of any such materials indicating that the petitioner had filed any application for being released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR case, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the petitioners husband is likely to be released on bail suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh (supra). Hence, the petition is allowed." 20. Hence, the petition is allowed." 20. Relying on the ratio of the above two mentioned judgments of the Apex Court and coordinate High court of Manipur, I am of the considered view that the submission made by the learned PP that the detenue being a member of an organization who has sufficient resources can come forth to enlarge the accused on bail does not satisfy the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and also the High Court of Manipur. I am of the considered view that the apprehension that the detenue being released on bail must be supported by material facts and not only suggestive apprehension which cannot be the basis of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. Therefore, in this aspect of the matter, the detention order suffers from subjective satisfaction. 21. With regard to the issue whether the common law is sufficient to deal with the situation. This Court cannot express another view on a ratio passed a coordinate Bench of this High Court. In the case of Huirongbam Iboyaima Singh (supra). If so, the matter would be referable to the larger bench which I venture not to do so. I find that the ratio as laid down in the mentioned case is sound and accordingly, I take the view that the present case can be dealt effectively by recourse to ordinary law. There is no recovery of arms from the detenue neither is there allegation of any verbal threat or forceful taxation perpetrated by the detenue. Therefore, the view that there was no necessity to take recourse to extra ordinary law of preventive detention finds support. 22. In view of the discussions above, I am of the view that the detenue has to be given relief. The detention order dated 22-04-2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Kohima and the approval order dated 28-04-2021 passed by the State Government are hereby quashed and set aside. 23. The detenue be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other cases. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.