JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner's son Purshottam Bhoi was detained under the order dated 27-1047 passed by the District Magistrate, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1980'). The detenu was handed over copies of the grounds of detention and the relevant papers on 28-10-87. His detention was approved by the State Government on 6-11-87. The Advisory Board also confirmed the detention of the detenu and thereupon, the State Govt. in exercise of powers conferred under section 12 (1) confirmed the detention order vide its order dated 10-12-87. It was directed that the detenu be detained for one year from 26.10.88. It is against this detention order, that the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Notices were issued to the respondents. State of Rajasthan has filed reply of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner's son Purshottam Bhoi (detenu) was involved in seven criminal cases one of November, 1982, 2 of 1985, one of 1986 and 3 of 1987. In one case, the detenu has been acquitted, which was launched against him under section 307 read with 326 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31.5.87. In all other cases, the detenu has been enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the detention order of the detenu is illegal as it is not necessary to maintain the public order that the detenu should be detained, It is only a case of law and order and in this connection he has placed reliance on (1) Gulab Mehra V. State of U.P. and others, ( AIR 1987 SC 2332 ) , (2) Keshri Singh V. State of Rajasthan and another, (1987 (1) R.L.R. 274) and two decisions of this very bench in (3) Writ Petition No. 1609/87 decided on 27.11.87 ( Raghunandan Singh v. State and (4) Writ Petition No. 249/88, Nand Lal v. State decided on 14.6.1988 . 5. We hive heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the grounds of detention and also the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the State Government. The detenu has not been found guilty in any of the cases pending against him and the cases are still pending trial. 5. We hive heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the grounds of detention and also the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the State Government. The detenu has not been found guilty in any of the cases pending against him and the cases are still pending trial. We had occasion to discuss Supreme Court cases in the two judgments of this court in Raghunandan and Nand Lal (supra). and we are of the opinion that the case of the detenu also cannot fall within the definition of maintenance of public order, but it is a case of maintenance of law and order. 6. Thus, we are of the opinion that the detention order is bad as it cannot be said that the detenue has been acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. State Government has to deal with the law and order situation within the procedure prescribed under law. Detenu could be dealt with in the manner prescribed in law for a particular offence which he has committed. It will be open for the authorities to place all these facts before the Court concerned at the appropriate stage and it they so feel, it will be open for them to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the detenu and the trial court will decide the application in accordance with law, or if the detenu commits some fresh incident or crime, it will be open for the State to oppose the bail application, if filed, on behalf of the detenu, giving details of all these previous cases which are pending against him and then, it will be open for the court to decide that application also in accordance with law. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 27.10.87 (Annexure-I), order dated 6.11.87 (Anx. 3) and order dated 10.12.87 (Annexure-4) are quashed and set aside. He should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Petition allowed. *******