Judgment : R. Phukan, J. Heard Mr. Pokyim Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Mr. C. Phom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Yanger Wati, learned CGSC for the respondent No. 3. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/226, dated 07.10.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (Political Branch), Nagaland, Kohima, along with other consequential/connected confirmation or extension orders; and also the order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/249, dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, by which Shri Durg Singh is put under preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’, for short). Background Facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “On 12.06.2025, at 21:30 hours, during routing routine MVCP along NH2, between Khuzama and Viswema village area, at around 16:20 hours, one MVCP team of Narcotic P.S. stopped one vehicle, bearing Registration No. WB-54X-4569 (Hyundai i20 white coloured), which was coming from Manipur side. During search of the vehicle in presence of two independent witnesses, under video recording, a fabricated compartment was detected under the driver and co-passenger seats and narcotic drugs, suspected to be of brown sugar, were found concealed inside the specially built compartment located under the driver's seat, which had been structurally altered to include a secret compartment. The suspected contrabands were wrapped in black cello tape, and the same were taken out and altogether six packets were found, which were marked as A1 to A6, and weighed separately using digital measuring scale, and the total weight was found to be 5950 grams i.e. 5.950 kg. The recovered items were duly seized, packed and sealed in a parcel, which was attested by both the independent witnesses and the accused persons, and the accused persons were arrested under proper arrest memo and the rights available to them were read out to them in the language they understood, and the ground of arrest and the reason of arrest were also intimated to them and their relatives were also informed about their arrest. During enquiry, it had been found that the contraband was to be supplied to one Bharat, with mobile number 7742317426, and the two arrested accused persons were identified as Durg Singh of Jodhpur, Rajasthan and Matu Singh of Sewad Badi, Rajasthan. Thereafter, one UBSI Zasilie Angami of Narcotic Cell PS, PHQ Kohima, Nagaland lodged a Suo Moto FIR with the Officer In-charge of Narcotic Police Station, Nagaland, Kohima, upon which a case, being Narcotic P.S. Case No. 6 of 2025, under Sections 21(c)/27A of the NDPS Act, read with Section 61 of BNS was registered, and the arrested accused persons were forwarded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on 21.07.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Narcotic and Prohibition, Nagaland, Kohima had forwarded a proposal to the Superintendent of Police (SCRB) & Nodal Officer for Preventive Detention under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, PHQ, Nagaland, Kohima for detention of Durg Singh under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, upon which the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (Political Branch), Nagaland, Kohima had passed the impugned order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/226, dated 07.10.2025 and Durg Singh i.e. the detenu was put under preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS, 1988. The ground of detention was communicated to the detenu with the following papers: a. Minutes of screening Board constituted to look into the proposal submitted under PITNDPS Act 1988 vide No. PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR-D/81B/499, dated 25.07.2025. b. Office Letter No. PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR-D/81B/2022/500, dated 25.07.2025, written by the Addl. Director General of Police (ADM) & Chairman Screening Board PITNDPS Act, Nagaland Police Headquarter, Kohima, to the Special Secretary (Home), Home Department, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. c. Office Letter No. PHQ/IGP/CID/NAR-D/109/2024/410, dated 21.07.2025, written by the Superintendent of Police (N&P), Nagaland Police Headquarter, Kohima, to the Superintendent of Police (SCRB) & Nodal Officer for Preventive detention under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act 1988, PHQ, Nagaland, Kohima. d. Proposal for the detention written by the I/O of the case, Nagaland Police Headquarter, Nagaland, Kohima. e. FIR No. 06/2025, dated 12.06.2025. f. Statement of accused recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 on 14.06.2025. g. Property Search & Seizure form dated 12.06.2025. h. Arrest/Court Surrender Memo dated 12.06.2025. i. Rights of the arrested person. j. Grounds of arrest. k. Office Letter dated 23.07.2025, written by the Crime Assistant, Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur West to the Inspector General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima. g. Property Search & Seizure form dated 12.06.2025. h. Arrest/Court Surrender Memo dated 12.06.2025. i. Rights of the arrested person. j. Grounds of arrest. k. Office Letter dated 23.07.2025, written by the Crime Assistant, Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur West to the Inspector General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima. l. Grounds of Detention written by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department, Political Branch, Nagaland, Kohima to the detenu. Thereafter, the detenu had filed one bail application, being Bail Application No. 19/2025, before the learned Single Judge of this Court, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 16.10.2025. Thereafter, the detenu had submitted one representation on 23.10.2025, being Annexure No. 16 of the petition, but the said representation was dismissed vide order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/249, dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-17) and vide order No. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/251, dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-18). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.” Submissions:- 4. Mr. Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned detention order, dated 07.10.2025 (Anneuxre-2) and also the impugned order, dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-17) and the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-18) suffer from manifest illegality and is the result of non-application of mind by the respondent authorities. Mr. Yaden submits that the grounds of detention (Annexure-2) and the documents, being Annexure-3 to 14, all were furnished to the detenu in English language, whereas the detenu does not understand English language, and he is conversant with Hindi language only and as such, there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and on this count alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be interfered with. Mr. Yaden further submits that the alleged offence committed by the detenu could have been dealt with under the ordinary law and Section 37 of the NDPS Act would here effectively deal with the case of the detenu; but without subjecting the detenu to the ordinary law under the NDPS Act, he has been illegally detained under the PITNDPS Act. Mr. Yaden further submits that the alleged offence committed by the detenu could have been dealt with under the ordinary law and Section 37 of the NDPS Act would here effectively deal with the case of the detenu; but without subjecting the detenu to the ordinary law under the NDPS Act, he has been illegally detained under the PITNDPS Act. Mr. Yaden also submits that the detenu has no antecedent of any activities and there is also no reflection in the impugned detention order to the effect that the detenu is in judicial custody and since his bail application was rejected, there is no prospect of immediate release of the detenu on bail from jail, and under such circumstances, the impugned detention order (Annexure-2) and the order of rejection of his representation, being Annexure-17 are liable to be set aside and quashed. 4.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Yaden has referred to a decision of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 17/2025 ( Smti. Afia Begum vs. State of Nagaland and Ors. ) , and a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary vs. the State of Nagaland and Ors. , in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4872-4873 of 2024 5. Per contra, Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by referring to the stand taken in the affidavit- in-opposition, submits that there is no merit in this petition. Ms. Livika submits that the impugned detention order, dated 07.10.2025 and the grounds of detention with relevant documents were served upon the detenu on 10.10.2025, and the documents had been explained to him in Hindi, the language he professed and understands, and the same were additionally translated to Hindi to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order, and as such, there is no violation of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Ms. Livika also submits that after taking into account various aspects of the case, the authorities found it necessary to put the detenu in preventive detention in the greater interest of the State, and after a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the detenu is a trafficker of NDPS and likely to be indulged in similar prejudicial activities, unless prevented from doing so by appropriate order of preventive detention. Ms. Ms. Livika further submits that all procedural safeguards have been strictly adhered to by the Detaining Authority within the stipulated time frame, and that the records will further substantiate that the requirement of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 has fully been complied with. 5.1. In support of her contention and also in support of the stand being taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, she has also produced the relevant file of the Home Department (Political Branch) of the Govt. of Nagaland. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone to the petition and the documents placed on the record, and also perused the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), and also the order of rejection of representation of the detenu dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-17) and the order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-18). I have also carefully gone to the decisions relied upon by Mr. Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue before this Court:- 7. In view of the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, and the contentions being made in their pleading by the parties, the issue to be decided in this petition is formulated as under: (i) Whether the impugned detention order, dated 07.10.2025 and the order, dated 14.11.2025, withstand the legal scrutiny? Discussion and Analysis: 8. In order to appreciate the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025, (Annexure-2) herein below: “ GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT POLITICAL BRANCH ORDER Dated Kohima, the 07th October, 2025. NO. CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/226 :: Whereas, the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland has sent a proposal for detention of Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur under PITNDPS Act, 1988 along with records under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, And whereas, on perusal of records as submitted by the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland, it appears that Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur was involved in the following case:- (1) Narcotic PS Case no. 006/25 U/S 21(e)/27A NDPS Act r/w 61 BNS. And whereas, the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland, it appears that Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur was involved in the following case:- (1) Narcotic PS Case no. 006/25 U/S 21(e)/27A NDPS Act r/w 61 BNS. And whereas, the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland has proposed to prevent Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add-Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, under PITNDPS Act, 1988 from continuing his harmful and prejudicial activity by engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to people's health and welfare as his activities in such illegal traffic has a deleterious effect on the national economy. And whereas, I, Limasunep Jamir, Special Secretary (Home), Nagaland, specially empowered under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (as amended), am satisfied on careful examination of the proposal of the Addl. DGP (ADM), Nagaland and other supporting documents, found sufficient grounds for detention of Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, and being satisfied that with a view of preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in NDPS, it is necessary to detain him. Now, therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 do hereby issue this order directing Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o: Hari Singh; V/O: Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat, Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, be detained and kept in Central Jail, Dimapur for an initial period of three months. (LIMASUNEP JAMIR) IPS, Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. Dated Kohima, the 07th October, 2025” 7.1. Also, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-17) is reproduced herein below: “ GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT: POLITICAL BRANCH ORDER Dated Kohima, the 14th November. 2025. NO.CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/249:: Whereas, I. Limasunep Jamir. IPS. Special Secretary (Home), Nagaland has perused thye representation submitted by PITNDPS detenue Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh: V/O: Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur: Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur, under PITNDPS Act, 1988 as received from the Superintendent of Jail. Central Jail. 2025. NO.CON/PITNDPS/19/2025/249:: Whereas, I. Limasunep Jamir. IPS. Special Secretary (Home), Nagaland has perused thye representation submitted by PITNDPS detenue Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh: V/O: Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur: Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur, under PITNDPS Act, 1988 as received from the Superintendent of Jail. Central Jail. Dimapur vide letter No. CJ-209/2022-23/669-72 dated 12.11.2025. And whereas, after careful examination of all records/Police report concerning the detenue Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh: V/O: Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur: Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur. Iam satisfied that there are no justified grounds to revoke the order of detention. Now, therefore, the prayer of the detenue, Mr. Durg Singh (41 yrs) S/o:- Hari Singh: V/O: Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell. Jodhpur: Present/Add- Khivsariya Khat. Singh Ki Tubewell, Jodhpur, for revocation of the detention order dated 07.10.2025 passed against him under PITNDPS Act, 1988 is not acceded to. Sd/- LIMASUNEP JAMIR, IPS Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. Dated Kohima, the 14th November, 2025” Legal Trajectory:- 9. Before a discussion is directed into the factual aspect of the case, we deem it appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant provision of law. The relevant legal framework herein this case is PITNDPS Act, 1988, under which the impugned detention order was passed. Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act empowers the authorized officers, either of the Central Government or of a State Government, to detain any person with a view to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 9.1. Section 3(2) requires a State Government that passes such a detention order to forward a report of the same to the Central Government within ten days. 9.2. Section 3(3) mandates communication of the grounds on which the detention order has been made to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. 9.3. Sub-Section records that this requirement is for the purposes of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates such communication as soon as may be. 9.4. 9.3. Sub-Section records that this requirement is for the purposes of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates such communication as soon as may be. 9.4. Section 6 provides that the grounds of detention are severable and an order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative, merely because one or some of the grounds is either found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant or not connected with such persons or is invalid for any other reason. Section 6 specifically records that where a person has been detained pursuant to an order of detention, under Section 3(1), which has been made on two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been made separately on each ground. This indicates that the order of detention must be accompanied by the 'grounds of detention' made by the detaining authority itself. 9.5. Section 11 speaks of the maximum period of detention and states that the same may be extended up to 2 (two) years from the date of detention. Precedents:- 10. We also deem it appropriate to have a look to the proposition of law, laid down in some of the precedents: (i) Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India , reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128 In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the detenus were already in judicial custody at the time, the orders of preventive detention were passed against them. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that detention orders could be validly passed against detenus who were in jail, provided the officers passing the orders were alive to the factum of the detenus being in custody and there was material on record to justify the conclusion that they would indulge in similar activities, if set at liberty. (ii) Binod Singh vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar , reported in (1986) 4 SCC 416 In this case, it has been held that there must be cogent material before the officer passing the detention order to infer that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and such an inference must be drawn from the material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the officer passing such order. Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that before passing the detention order in respect of a person who is in jail, the concerned authority must satisfy himself and such satisfaction must be reached on the basis of cogent material that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, further, if released on bail, the material on record must reveal that he/she would indulge in prejudicial activity again, if not detained. (iii) Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 In this case, a 3-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed that where a detention order is passed against a person already in jail, there should be a real possibility of the release of that person on bail, that is, he must have moved a bail application which is pending. It was observed that if no bail application is pending, it logically followed that there is no likelihood of the person in jail being released on bail. The Bench, however, pointed out that the exception to this Rule would be where a co-accused, whose case stood on the same footing, was granted bail. The Bench cautioned that details in this regard have to be recorded, otherwise the statement would be mere ipse dixit and cannot be relied upon. (iv) The above mentioned proposition in the case Rekha (supra) is also reiterated and followed in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 (v) Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where detention orders are passed against persons who are already in jail, the detaining authority should apply its mind and show awareness in the grounds of detention of the chances of release of such persons on bail. It has been further observed that the detaining authority must be reasonably satisfied, on the basis of cogent material, that there is a likelihood of the detenu's release and in view of his/her antecedent activities, which are proximate in point of time, he/she must be detained in order to prevent him/her from indulging in such prejudicial activities. It has been further observed that the detaining authority must be reasonably satisfied, on the basis of cogent material, that there is a likelihood of the detenu's release and in view of his/her antecedent activities, which are proximate in point of time, he/she must be detained in order to prevent him/her from indulging in such prejudicial activities. It is also been held that an order of detention would be valid in such circumstances only, if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that the detenu is actually in custody; the authority has a reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material, that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail; and that, upon such release, he/she would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities; and it is felt essential to detain him/her to prevent him/her from so doing. (vi) Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1962 SC 911 In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) has held that in the context of proper communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu so as to protect his/her right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India making an effective representation against such detention. In that case, the grounds of detention were in English and the authorities asserted that the same were explained to the detenu in Hindi, a language known to the detenu, and that it would amount to satisfactory compliance. However, such plea was not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant observations of the Bench in this regard are extracted herein below:- "In our opinion, this was not sufficient compliance in this case with the requirements of the Constitution, as laid down in clause (5) of Article 22. To a person, who is not conversant with the English language, service of the Order and the grounds of detention in English, with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the law. To a person, who is not conversant with the English language, service of the Order and the grounds of detention in English, with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the law. As has been explained by this Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya [1951 SCC 43: (1951) SCR 167 ] clause (5) of Article 22 requires that the grounds of his detention should be made available to the detenu as soon as may be, and that the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the Order should also be afforded to him. In order that the detenu should have that opportunity, it is not sufficient that he has been physically delivered the means of knowledge with which to make his representation. In order that the detenu should be in a position effectively to make his representation against the Order, he should have knowledge of the grounds of detention, which are in the nature of the charge against him setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to him. Communication, in this context, must, therefore, mean imparting sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on which the Order of Detention is based. In this case the grounds are several, and are based on numerous speeches said to have been made by the appellant himself on different occasions and different dates. Naturally, therefore, any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer serving those on the detenu would not amount to communicating the grounds. Communication, in this context, must mean bringing home to the detenu effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the Order of Detention is based." In the aforesaid case, it has further been held that if the detenu is not conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he/she can understand and in a script which he/she can read, if he/she is a literate person. 11. From the aforesaid decisions, the proposition of law, relating to preventive detention, under the PITNDPS Act, can be constituted as under:- (i) The Officer, passing the detention order, must be alive to the factum of the detenu being in custody. 11. From the aforesaid decisions, the proposition of law, relating to preventive detention, under the PITNDPS Act, can be constituted as under:- (i) The Officer, passing the detention order, must be alive to the factum of the detenu being in custody. (ii) There must be material on the record to justify the conclusion that they would indulge in similar activities if set at liberty. (iii) There must be cogent material before the Officer, passing the detention order, to infer that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, i.e. he must have moved a bail application which is pending. (iv) If no bail application is pending, it logically follows that there is no likelihood of the detenu being released on bail. (v) Such inference must be drawn from the materials on the record and must not be the ipse-dixit of the Officer passing such order. (vi) The ground of detention to be furnished to the detenu in the language in which he is conversant with, in compliance with the requirement of Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, so that he can make representation against the detention order. 12. Now, Adverting to the facts herein this case, we find that it is not in dispute that the grounds of detention of the detenu were communicated in English language, and the papers, that have been enclosed with the detention order, and the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu from serial numbers (a) to (l), all are in English language. It is the categorical contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is conversant with Hindi language only, and as he is not acquainted with English language, the requirement of Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be satisfied with, as because on account of the barrier of language, he could not make a representation against the impugned detention order at the earliest opportunity. 13. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 13. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Yaden, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the grounds of detention were explained to him in Hindi language, to which he is conversant with, but the said submission left this Court unimpressed in view of the proposition of law, laid down in the case of Harikisan (supra), which requires that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in the language to which he is conversant with. 14. Further, it appears that the petitioner had preferred one bail application before this Court, being Bail Application No. 19/2025, and the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, and since his bail application has been dismissed, there is no immediate prospect of releasing the petitioner on bail. It also appears that the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned detention order, has failed to take into account the aforesaid aspect and also failed to mention in the impugned detention order that the detenu is in judicial custody. 15. Thus, there is no material to show that the Detaining Authority has applied its mind to show awareness of the chances of the detenu being released on bail. It has also failed to record its satisfaction, on the basis of cogent material, that there is a likelihood of the detenu being released, and in view of such release and in view of the antecedent activities that are proximate in time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities. There is no material to record the finding that in the interest of the State and the society at large, the detenu should be kept in detention. Nothing was recorded in the impugned detention order about the antecedent of the detenu. 16. We have also noticed that the Detaining Authority has simply recorded the proposal sent by the Additional DGP (ADM), Nagaland to prevent the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 in the impugned detention order. It has not recorded any independent finding to that effect and also not recorded the basis of such finding. 16. We have also noticed that the Detaining Authority has simply recorded the proposal sent by the Additional DGP (ADM), Nagaland to prevent the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 in the impugned detention order. It has not recorded any independent finding to that effect and also not recorded the basis of such finding. And that being so, there is reason to believe that the said statement made in the impugned detention order, is nothing but a mere ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority, and the same cannot be relied upon in view of the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha (supra) and also in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kamarunnissa (supra), Binod Singh (supra), Paul Manickam (supra) and Mortuza Hussain Choudhary (supra), as discussed herein above. Finding:- 17. Under the given factual and legal matrix, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025, and the impugned order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, fail to withstand the legal scrutiny and on such count, the same is liable to be interfere with. 18. In the result, we find sufficient merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025 and the impugned order 14.11.2025, and all consequential orders extending the period of detention of the detenu, stand set aside and quashed. Consequently, the detenu shall be released from custody, if not warranted in any other case. 19. In terms above, this writ petition (criminal) stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. The records produced by Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate, shall be returned back.