S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. C. MISRA, JJ. ( 1 ) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of the nature of Habeas corpus directing his release from custody after quashing the detention order dated 30-7-1997, recorded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. ( 2 ) THE detention order was appended with the grounds of detention and it indicated that the petitioner had been a man of desparate nature prone to commit offences and was also a history sheeter. He had established links with one Mahendra Singh Sagar a person of similar nature and disposition. It was stated that the petitioner used to work as a hired killer and through his actions he had created a terror in the locality and nobody dared to raise any objection against him or to speak against him as a witness. It was alleged that on 7-4-1997 he had done to death a senior Advocate. Sri Dhiraj Singh Bhatia, along with his co-conspirators and the situation posed a serious threat to maintenance of public order. It was alleged that after the incident the petitioner had absconded. Subsequently. However, he surrendered in connection with another case and went to jail. ( 3 ) THE grounds indicated that he was one of the persons who had come on a motor-cycle and had showered bullets on Sri Bhatia and had fled away on the motor-cycle itself. The motorcycle was being driven by one Pappan and one Kishore was allegedly with this petitioner and both of them had allegedly opened fire on Sri Bhatia over some dispute over election in a Bus owners Union. As a result of this killing not only immediate terror was created but the incident had affected the even tempo of the society as the markets courts etc. were closed and full Hartal was observed in Bulandshahr and adjoining areas. ( 4 ) THE grounds indicated other alleged cases levelled against him. It was further stated that the petitioner was trying to get himself out on bail and there was likelihood of his getting bail and there was further likelihood that once out on bail he would again engage himself in similar criminal activities. ( 4 ) THE grounds indicated other alleged cases levelled against him. It was further stated that the petitioner was trying to get himself out on bail and there was likelihood of his getting bail and there was further likelihood that once out on bail he would again engage himself in similar criminal activities. ( 5 ) THE writ petition was pressed on the grounds that the incident in question took place on 7-4-1997 and in different instalments the District Magistrate had issued different detention orders for different accused persons. It was indicated that for Mahendra a co-accused a detention order was passed and was subsequently revoked. It was further stated that for Kishore and Pappan detention order was recorded and the save was quashed by this Court vide order dated 13-2-1998. It was contended that when Kishore. Pappan and Mahendra were set at liberty either by an order from this Court or by an order from the State itself there is no reason for the detention further detention of the present petitioner. ( 6 ) IT was further contended that there was absolute non-application of mind by the District Magistrate as he never looked to the problem comprehensibly although he had every facts to his knowledge by 16-4-1997. He had only acted on successive recommendations from the Police Officers and in this case also the recommendation dated 28-7-1997 came from the Police Station, it was forwarded by the S. S. P. on 29-7-1997, and the District Magistrate, recorded the order of detention on 30-7-1997 not taking into account that long prior to that date the order in respect of Mahendra was revoked by the State. ( 7 ) IN reply to these submissions the learned A. G. A. submitted that the roles attributed to different accused persons in the alleged incident of 7-4-1997 were different and for the present petitioner the role of actual shooting was there and as such it is distinguishable from the case of others and parity may not be claimed by him. In this record however, it may be indicated that both Kishore and Nanak were attributed the same role and if Kishore was given certain benefit there is no reason why the same treatment under the law may not be given to Nanak. In this record however, it may be indicated that both Kishore and Nanak were attributed the same role and if Kishore was given certain benefit there is no reason why the same treatment under the law may not be given to Nanak. Moreover on this aspect it may be stated that it is not always the degree of involvement of any particular accused which is relevant. ( 8 ) WE are not dealing with a trial where punishment may differ on the basis of the roles placed by the different accused persons. In prevention proceedings we are concerned with the question of disturbances of public order and whatever be the role of a particular accused it is the total effect of the incident which leads to disturbances of public order. As regards Mahendra, we are of the view that the F. I. R. spoke of his involvement in the incident and he was very much present at the spot in a Maruti Car and he helped the miscreants to take to their heels. The order concerning Mahendra was revoked long prior to the initiation of the proceeding against the present petitioner. There is, however nothing on record to indicate that the facts that a proceeding was started against a cc- accused; viz. Mahendra or that the State has revoked his order of detention were considered by the District Magistrate while recording the order of detention for this petitioner. Similarly the order of revocation for Mahendra does not appear to have been considered by the State while confirming the detention order in respect of the present petitioner. We may now look to out judgment in Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition Nos. 34923 of 1997 and 34267 of 1997 in respect of the petitioners Kishore and Pappan respectively. ( 9 ) THE question of revocation of the detention order in respect of Mahendra was considered by us in the aforesaid two cases. We were of the view that all the materials for issuance of detention orders were there before the District Magistrate. Bulandshahr on 16-4-1997 itself and there was no demand under the law that a person must be in custody before being proceeded against under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. There was no reason why the District Magistrate waited for their apprehension first before proceeding under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. Bulandshahr on 16-4-1997 itself and there was no demand under the law that a person must be in custody before being proceeded against under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. There was no reason why the District Magistrate waited for their apprehension first before proceeding under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. We were of the view that the District Magistrate had every material before him to know fully well what was the impact of the incident on the society as far back as on 16-4-1997 itself, but he went on making repetitive detention orders against different persons solely on sponsoring from the police authorities. We were further of the view that while approving the detention order the State was required to apply its mind and it will not be a mere ritual of formality to accord an approval of a detention order. The State had before it the revocation orders of Mahendra while approving the orders of detention of Kishore and Pappan and this was held to be absolute non-application of mind. ( 10 ) THESE arguments are available in toto in the case of Nanak as well and we must hold that for Nanak there had been a total non-application of mind. Moreover. Kishore and Nanak stand on the same footing so far the allegations in the F. I. R. are concerned and when the detention order in respect of Kishore was quashed for good reasons indicated in our Judgment the same treatment must be given to Nanak also as no differentiation could be made in their roles in the alleged act. ( 11 ) UPON such findings we are of the view that the detention order dated 30-7 -1997 recorded against the present petitioner by the District Magistrate. Bulandshahr, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act cannot be sustained and ought to be quashed. ( 12 ) THE writ petition stands allowed. The detention order against the petitioner dated 30-7-1997 is hereby quashed. The petitioner must be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Petition allowed. .