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. 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