Judgement SAWANT, J.: - The order of detention in the present case was passed on 21st July, 1986 under the National Security Act and was served on the detenu on 23rd July, 1986. The grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu on 26th July. 1986 mention incidents the first of which took place on 30-10-1985, the second on 13-12-1985 and the third on 20-4-1986. In the first incident, the detenu had entered the room of one lady where she and her sons were sleeping and asked them at the point of knife to get out of the room and vacate it for him to enable him to stay there. In the second incident he and his three associates armed with sword and choppers had robbed a citizen of an amount of Rs. 4,03,500/- and in the third incident he was consistently harassing one lady by abusing her in most filthy language and when she lodged a complaint with the police, he beat and threatened her with dire consequence if she again lodged a complaint against him with the police. While describing the first two incidents it has also been stated in the grounds, that the detenu was arrested in connection with the said incidents and offences were also registered against him. Although there is no mention in the grounds that he was released on bail, while giving the particulars of the third incident it has been particularly mentioned that the detenu was arrested for the offence on the same day and was subsequently released on bail. 2. Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel appearing for the detenu submitted that as far as the first two incidents are concerned, there is nothing on record and particularly in the detention order, to show that the detenu had applied for bail and was released on bail thereafter. Relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment he contended that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the relevant material on record inasmuch as the authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu was released oh bail for the first two offences. 3. Mrs. Desai appearing for the respondent State produced before us the original proposal for detention submitted by the police authorities to the detaining authority. This proposal shows that after describing each of the three incidents, it has been specifically stated therein that the detenu was released on bail. 3. Mrs. Desai appearing for the respondent State produced before us the original proposal for detention submitted by the police authorities to the detaining authority. This proposal shows that after describing each of the three incidents, it has been specifically stated therein that the detenu was released on bail. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu was released on bail for the first two offences merely because the detention order does not specifically state so. What the Supreme Court has laid down is that the detention order is liable to be set aside if it is shown that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that in the incidents which are made the basis of detention order, the detenu was released on bail. As is apparent from the proposal which was before the detaining authority, the authority was amply made aware of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in connection will all the three offences. This being the case, the Supreme Court decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. It was no doubt sought to be urged on behalf of the detenu that the three incidents did not spell out danger to public order or security and that they created only the problems of law and order. It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple reason that the individuals involved in all the three cases were members of general public and were picked on by the detenu as such and not because he had any enmity with them earlier. In particular, the second incident shows that the detenu was a dare devil and had become a menace to the society at large and neither the lives nor the property of the peace-loving citizens was safe with him at large. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that the incidents created not merely the questions of law and order but were sufficient to disturb the even tempo of the society. 5. No other contention was raised in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the rule discharged. Rule discharged. Judgement SAWANT, J.: - The order of detention in the present case was passed on 21st July, 1986 under the National Security Act and was served on the detenu on 23rd July, 1986. 5. No other contention was raised in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the rule discharged. Rule discharged. Judgement SAWANT, J.: - The order of detention in the present case was passed on 21st July, 1986 under the National Security Act and was served on the detenu on 23rd July, 1986. The grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu on 26th July. 1986 mention incidents the first of which took place on 30-10-1985, the second on 13-12-1985 and the third on 20-4-1986. In the first incident, the detenu had entered the room of one lady where she and her sons were sleeping and asked them at the point of knife to get out of the room and vacate it for him to enable him to stay there. In the second incident he and his three associates armed with sword and choppers had robbed a citizen of an amount of Rs. 4,03,500/- and in the third incident he was consistently harassing one lady by abusing her in most filthy language and when she lodged a complaint with the police, he beat and threatened her with dire consequence if she again lodged a complaint against him with the police. While describing the first two incidents it has also been stated in the grounds, that the detenu was arrested in connection with the said incidents and offences were also registered against him. Although there is no mention in the grounds that he was released on bail, while giving the particulars of the third incident it has been particularly mentioned that the detenu was arrested for the offence on the same day and was subsequently released on bail. 2. Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel appearing for the detenu submitted that as far as the first two incidents are concerned, there is nothing on record and particularly in the detention order, to show that the detenu had applied for bail and was released on bail thereafter. Relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment he contended that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the relevant material on record inasmuch as the authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu was released oh bail for the first two offences. 3. Mrs. Desai appearing for the respondent State produced before us the original proposal for detention submitted by the police authorities to the detaining authority. 3. Mrs. Desai appearing for the respondent State produced before us the original proposal for detention submitted by the police authorities to the detaining authority. This proposal shows that after describing each of the three incidents, it has been specifically stated therein that the detenu was released on bail. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu was released on bail for the first two offences merely because the detention order does not specifically state so. What the Supreme Court has laid down is that the detention order is liable to be set aside if it is shown that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that in the incidents which are made the basis of detention order, the detenu was released on bail. As is apparent from the proposal which was before the detaining authority, the authority was amply made aware of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in connection will all the three offences. This being the case, the Supreme Court decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. It was no doubt sought to be urged on behalf of the detenu that the three incidents did not spell out danger to public order or security and that they created only the problems of law and order. It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple reason that the individuals involved in all the three cases were members of general public and were picked on by the detenu as such and not because he had any enmity with them earlier. In particular, the second incident shows that the detenu was a dare devil and had become a menace to the society at large and neither the lives nor the property of the peace-loving citizens was safe with him at large. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that the incidents created not merely the questions of law and order but were sufficient to disturb the even tempo of the society. 5. No other contention was raised in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the rule discharged. Rule discharged.