S.N. BHARGAVA, J. -— This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Smt. Prem Kaur challenging the illegal detention of her son Krishna Kumar (c) Bebi,-son of Lokendra Nath, by caste Jat, resident of Gopalgarh, Bharatpur. 2. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur on 9th October, 1986 Annx. 2 u/s 3 (2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The said order was confirmed by the State Government vide their order dated 15.10.1986 (Annx. 4). The Advisory Board also recommended the detention and therefore, an order came to be passed on 18.11.1986 (Anx.7) u/s 13 of the Act, confirming the order of detention dated 9.10.1986 for detaining Krishna Kumar for one year upto 8.10.1987, and these orders have been challenged by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition was filed on 1.5.1987. Notices were issued and the State Government has filed the return on 13.7.1987. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 5. The respondents have produced grounds of detention wherein they have placed reliance on the following instances.*- (i) Krishna Kumar has involved in FIR No. 232/81 u/s 326 IPC and 307 IPC for throwing some liquid on the face of Santosh Kumar wherein challan was filed on 31.5.81 which is pending in the court of law. (ii) An FIR No. 321/81 u/s 324 r/w Sec.34 against Krishna Kumar and other accused persons for inflicting knife blows on Vishnu Sharma, wherein a charge-sheet was filed in the court on 30.6.81. (iii) Similarly, he was also involved in an incident of snatching the bag containing a sum of Rs. 2419/-from one Islam Khan, Manager, Neelkamal Cinema after throwing acid, for which FIR No. 322/84 was registered u/s 394 IPC and the charge-sheet was filed on 14.12.84 against Krishna Kumar and others and that matter is pending. (iv) The detenue was also involved in a case registered as FIR No. 78/85 u/ss 307, 353, 332, 147, 146, 336, 435 and 379 IPC in an incident which happened on 22.2.85, when the funeral procession of the dead body of Raja Mansingh was being taken out. That matter is still pending. (iv) The detenue was also involved in a case registered as FIR No. 78/85 u/ss 307, 353, 332, 147, 146, 336, 435 and 379 IPC in an incident which happened on 22.2.85, when the funeral procession of the dead body of Raja Mansingh was being taken out. That matter is still pending. (v) Krishna Kumar was also named in another FIR No. 108/85 registered u/s 148, 323, 379 and 307 IPC for inflicting injuries to Khushi Ram and Hariram for which FIR was lodged on 30.6.85 and is pending trial. (vi) Another FIR No. 644/85 u/s 147,148,149, 323 and 307 IPC was also registered where there were allegations against Krishna Kumar and his other friends for firing on Raghunandan Sharma at his house. That matter is still pending investigation. (vii) Another FIR No. 48/86 u/s 224 IPC was lodged on 31. 1. 86 implicating Krishna Kumar. (viii) Lastly, Krishna Kumar was also named in FIR No. 289/86 registered u/s 307 IPC for opening fire on Girdharilal in a public place and there are other general allegations without quoting any particular instance. 6. In her writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and the facts were not placed before her in right perspective, and the authorities have mis-led and mis-represented her by concealing material facts that in some of those cases, the detenue had been acquitted and, therefore, his detention order is liable to be quashed, and in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sitaram Somani Vs. State of Rajasthan (1). 7. It has been submitted that in the first instance quoted in the grounds as above, the detenue was charge-sheeted only u/s 324 IPC and not u/s 307 IPC and further that the detenue was acquitted in that case on 13. 8. 1985, and that it has been wrongly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the matter is still pending in the court. 8. Similarly in case (ii) also, the detenue has been acquitted as far back as on 27. 11. 1982 which fact has been concealed from the detaining authority. 9. 8. 1985, and that it has been wrongly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the matter is still pending in the court. 8. Similarly in case (ii) also, the detenue has been acquitted as far back as on 27. 11. 1982 which fact has been concealed from the detaining authority. 9. In the (iii) case, the detenue was charge-sheeted not u/s 394 IPC but u/s 324 IPC and was acquitted on 23.10.86 and thus, these three instances should not have been considered and if considered, the fact that the detenue was acquitted in these three cases should have also been considered by the detaining authority. 10. As regards instance No. (iv), it has been submitted that it relates to a general public disturbance following the death of Raja Mansingh in very abnormal circumstances and the investigation has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and as far as known to the petitioner, so far no arrest has been made and challan has not been filed in the court. Moreover, the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail and this fact has also been suppressed from the detaining authority purposely. 11. As regards instance No. (v) the authorities have not placed true and correct facts before the authority concerned. There was a cross-case in the incident and the detenu has been charged u/s 147, 148, 149, 323 and 341 and not u/s 307 and 379 IPC as mentioned in the FIR and a compromise deed has already been filed in accordance with the settlement arrived at between the parties outside the court. 12. Similarly, instance No. (vi) was also a cross-case- No charge-sheet has been submitted against the detenu till the passing of the detention order, whereas a charge-sheet had already been filed against the complainant Raghun-andan Sharma u/s 307 IPC for which an FIR No. 645/85 was registered. However, a challan has been filed against the detenu also after the detention order has been passed. 13. As regards instance No. (vii), the petitioner has submitted that investigation was completed after 8 months and there is no reliable independent evidence against the detenu. 14. As regards instance No. (viii) also, the petitioner has submitted that no reliable evidence is available and there are several contradictions in the evidence u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is likely to be acquitted. 15. 14. As regards instance No. (viii) also, the petitioner has submitted that no reliable evidence is available and there are several contradictions in the evidence u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is likely to be acquitted. 15. Thus, the petitioner has urged that the detenu, her son, has not been convicted by any court in any case so far, though some cases are pending against him. She has also submitted that the detaining authority has relied on stale cases except the last one and therefore also, detention of the detenu should be quashed. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Sushanta Goswami V. State of West Bengal (2) Smt. Shalini Soni V. Union of India (3) Shiv Prasad Bhatna-gar V. State of MP (4) and Kamlakar P. Chalurvedi V. State of MP (5). 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the detenu is already in jail in connection with the last incident dated 15.6.86, the detention order should not have been passed and in this connection, he has placed reliance on Vijay Kumar Vs. State of J&K(6) Jai Singh Vs. State of JK(7) Ramesh Yadav V. D.M. Etah (8) Lachit Bordoloi Vs. State of Assam (9) and Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar (10). 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no material has been placed before this court so as to justify the detention order to prevent breach of public order. There is vast difference between public order and law and order and every apprehension of breach of law and order will not necessarily be a breach of public order, therefore, also the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and in this connection, he has placed reliance on Ram Manohar Lohia V. State of Bihar (11) Sushanta Goswami V. State of West Bengal (12) Pushkar Mukherjee & others V. State of West Bengal (13) Arun Ghosh V. State of West Bengal (14) Jaya Mala V. Home Secretary (15) Ajay Dixit V. State of UP (16) and the latest authority of the Supreme Court in State of UP V. Hari Shankar Tewari (17). 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter as also have considered the impugned detention order. 19. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter as also have considered the impugned detention order. 19. It is not necessary for us to consider the various authorities cited at the bar as we had occasion to consider all these authorities recently in Tillumal V. State of Rajasthan (18) (D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1949/86, decided on 25.3.8"). 20. Keeping in mind the various authorities and our recent judgment in Tillumal (supra), we are unable to agree with the detaining authority that it is a case in which there is danger of breach of public order. All the instances given by the detaining authority relate to breach of law and order. The detaining authority has not considered very material fact with regard to the first three instances wherein the detenu had been acquitted in those cases. The authorities have tried to misguide and conceal material facts from the detaining authority and the petitioner has not been found guilty of any offence by any court in any case so far, and the matters are pending in the court of law. The detenu was already in jail and there is no immediate apprehension of his release. Even if the detenu moved the application for bail, the authorities could have brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner was involved in so many cases and the court would have considered and could have refused bail. 21. Thus, we are of the opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for detaining the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu could be dealt with in the ordinary procedure for a particular offence which he has committed and it will be open for the authorities to place all those facts before the court as and when an application for granting bail is moved on behalf of the detenu, and even if the petitioner had been released on bail, the authorities could have moved for cancellation of his bail bringing all these instances to the notice of the concerned court, which will of course examine the matter and pass an order in accordance with law. 22. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the detention order dated 9.10.1986 (Aanexure-2). order dated 15.10.86 (Annexure-4) and order dated 18.11.1986 (Annx.7) are here by quashed. 22. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the detention order dated 9.10.1986 (Aanexure-2). order dated 15.10.86 (Annexure-4) and order dated 18.11.1986 (Annx.7) are here by quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.