JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition, for the grant of a writ of habeas corpus, has beet presented by Ramchander, father of the detenu Achal Singh, by caste Rawana Rajput resident of Mahron-ka-Chowk, Jodhpur, seeking the lattess release. 2. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur, made an order on July 19, 1981, purporting to exercise his powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short; the NS Act hereinafter). The order was made in pursuance of the order of the State Government dated May 19, 1981. The detenu surrendered on July 13, 1981 and has been detained in Central Jail, Jodhpur. The State Government approved the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate on July 29, 1981, The District Magistrate, by his communication dated August 1, 1981, dispatched memorandum to the detenu enclosing the grounds of detention and documents on the basis of which the detenu has been detained under the NS Act. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board to consider the case of the detention of detenu under the NS Act and the Board opined that there are sufficient reasons to detain the detenu under the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 12 (1) of the Act, confirmed the detention order by its order dated September 11, 1981 and it has been directed under Section 13 of the NS Act that the detenu be detained upto July 29, 1982. The father of the detenu preferred a representation but to no effect. 3. The detention of the detenu has been challenged on various grounds, namely, (i) that the prosecution of the detenu for the various incidents forming the grounds of detention of the detenu under the NS Act are pending in various courts and, therefore, parallel proceedings by detaining the detenu under the NS Act cannot continue; (ii) that the grounds narrated in memorandum annexed to Anx. I are far fetched and have no real and proximate connection or relevancy, for detention of the detenu and the grounds relate to "law and order" and not to "public order" and, therefore, could not furnish grounds for his detention under the provisions of the NS Act; and (iii) that many of the grounds are not relevant, proximate; and are stale and suffer from the vice of vegueness and even a single vague or irrelevant ground is sufficient to vitiate the detention. 4. After the petition was filed in this Court, a notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the hebeas corpus petition be not allowed. The respondents have filed a return as also the affidavit of Arvind Mayaram, the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. In the return, a case has been set up that all the grounds relate to "public order" and not to "law and order". The pendency or otherwise of the prosecutions against the detenu is no bar to his detention under the NS Act because the proceedings are not parallel proceedings; while the prosecutions are punitive actions, the detention under the NS Act is preventive. It is further the case that the detention order consisted of preamble, of the grounds as also the particulars and as such, cannot be vitiated on that account. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as to whether, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an order providing that a person should be detained or not should be made and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit on appeal against orders of preventive detention. All that is required of this Court is to see as to whether the grounds for detention have any naxus with public order or any of them is irrelevant, vague or stale. 5. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We may state here that on behalf of one Prem Narain, his family friend Jaishankar had filed a habeas corpus writ petition No. 1826 of 1981. 5. We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We may state here that on behalf of one Prem Narain, his family friend Jaishankar had filed a habeas corpus writ petition No. 1826 of 1981. In the aforesaid petition, few of the grounds common and a Division Bench of this Court, under its order dated December 12, 1981, allowed the petition, holding that some of the grounds only related to law and order and some were vague and, therefore, detention of Prem Narain in that case was quashed. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid decision in Jaishankars case, it can be said that some of the grounds, in the instant case, only relate to "law and order" and not to "public order" and, therefore, the detention of Achalsingh in the present petitions also had. We are of the opinion that the vital issues which the learned counsel for the petitioner has agitated before us need not be dealt with in this petition because, as we shall presently show, the case is covered by Jaishankars case; but we will like to deal with one submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, whether during the pendency of prosecution, an order under sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the NS Act can be made against a detenu. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission that parallel proceedings, namely, prosecution for an incident and detention for the same incident is bad in law, has placed reliance on Biramchand v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1974 SC 1161 . In the aforesaid authority, a Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of two Judges, observed that if the authority concerned makes an order of detention under the Act and also prosecutes the person in a criminal case on the self-same facts, then, it in itself will introduce a serious infirmity in the order of detention and the same must be held to be invalid. But a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, in H. Shah v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1974 SC 2154 referring to an earlier decision of a Bench, larger than the Bench in Biramchand's case (supra), observed that the decision in Biramchand's case is contrary to the other Bench decisions consisting, in each case, of three learned Judges. It was further observed in para 33 that Article 14 is inapplicable because the preventive detention and prosecutions are not synonymous. The purposes are different, the authorities are different, the nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution, an accused is sought to be punished for a past act, in preventive detention, past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu. We will also make a reference to Hemlata v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 8 , Hirachand v. State of Rajasthan (IDH), (1980) 30 Raj. 578 and Smt. Thakuri Bai v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 RLW 383 . We are, therefore, of the opinion that the pendency or otherwise of the prosecution against a person is not an absolute bar for detention of a person, on the same facts, under Section 3 of the NS Act. 6. The grounds on which the detenu has been detained are contained in the annexure which was sent to the detenu with letter dated August 1, 1981 by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur. The grounds may be set out in two parts: the first part relates to ten incidents and two proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the detenu while the second part contains five reports of the general diary of the police station in between the period August 29, 1980 to June 16, 1981. The incidents, forming the grounds of the first part, as aforesaid, relate to the period from January 1, 1975 to April, 1981, that is their duration is for a period of about six years. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the incidents, which are not proximate to the order of detention, relate to the past conduct and antecedent history of the detenu and can appropriately be taken into account in making an order for detention. In support of his submission the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Thakuri Bais case (supra) and on Hemlatas case (supra). In support of his submission the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Thakuri Bais case (supra) and on Hemlatas case (supra). In Hemlatas case, in para 12, it was observed,- "The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can appropriately be taken into account in making a detention order. It is indeed largely from prior events showing tendencies or inclinations of a person that an inference can be drawn whether he is likely in future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community or his act of violation of foreign exchange regulations and his smuggling activities are likely to have deleterious effect on the national economy." In that case, their Lordships were considering the past conduct of the detenu, which past act also related to his earlier smuggling activities. We may state here that in the present petition, some of the incidents forming ground of detention as well as the copies of general diary of the police station were also subject of consideration in Jaishankars case, which case related to Premnarain who was a detenu in that case. It appears that for the incidents relating to grounds Nos. 3 and 4 of detention of Achalsingh, Premnarain was also involved and these incidents were grounds of detention of Premnarain in that case. Besides this, some of (he entries in the general diary, which have been referred to in the grounds formulated by the District Magistrate; along with Achalsingh, the detenu, Premnarain was also involved. This Court, in Jaishankar's case, observed : " ...The criminal activities of the detenu forming subject-matter of the criminal cases and the reports, detailed in the grounds of detention, refer to individual cases not affecting the community at large and an view of the meaning of the expression public order, they, in our opinion, cannot constitute disturbance of public order. At the most, they may effect law and order. There is no criminal case or report against the detenu in respect of a class of persons". It was also observed that the grounds relating to the reports (reports from the general diary of the police station) are vague. At the most, they may effect law and order. There is no criminal case or report against the detenu in respect of a class of persons". It was also observed that the grounds relating to the reports (reports from the general diary of the police station) are vague. We are of the opinion that even if the grounds relate to law and order but if they relate to the incidents which are the result of organised gangsterism and their effect enters the second concentric circle, namely, the public order, drawn by his Lordships in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 740 , then the ground of detention would relate to public order. But in the instant case, as in Jaishankars case, some of the grounds relate to law and order and do not, in any way, affect the even temper of the public. Therefore, such of the grounds for detention of Achalsingh, the detenu become irrelevant and have no nexus with the public order. The law is settled that even if one of the grounds is irrelevant, vague or non-existent, the entire order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980, is bad. 7. In the result, we allow the habeas corpus petition and hold that the order of detention of Achalsingh is illegal and bad. We hereby direct that Achal Singh son of Ramchandar resident Mehron-ka-chowk, Jodhpur, shall be released forthwith from jail if not required in any other case.Petition allowed. *******