D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ. ( 1 ) HARISH Kasna, who has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in pursuance of the order dated 6-10-1997 (Annexure 1) passed by the District Magistrate Agra, respondent No. 4, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the detention order and a direction for his release from detention forthwith. ( 2 ) FROM the order of detention (Annexure 1) and the grounds annexed to it (Annexure 2), com-municated to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act, it appears that the detaining authority on arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioners detention under Section 3 (2) of the Act is necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order directed his detention. In the grounds it is stated, inter alia, that on 31-6-1997 Sri Ram Swarup Mittal aged 67 years, a resident of 45 Defence Estate Area, Police Station Sadar Bazar, district Agra, had gone for a morning walk at about 5. 45 A. M. He did not return home. At about 7. 15 A. M. his son Ramesh Chandra Mittal received a call on his telephone No. 363052 from an unknown person who informed him that his father had been kidnapped. On receiving the information on telephone Ramesh Chandra Mittal lodged a first information report at police station Sadar Bazar, Agra which was registered as Case Crime No. 319 of 1997 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. On receiving the report the police made arrangements to tape telephones at the residence and business premises of Ram Swarup Mittal and also at the exchange. On the same day around 5. 45 p. m. again a call was received on telephone No. 363052 from an unknown person informing Ramesh Chandra Mittal that he should be ready to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000. 00 for release of his father from the kidnappers. He was further informed that in case he could not arrange for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- he should arrange at least Rs. 50,00,000. 00. 45 p. m. again a call was received on telephone No. 363052 from an unknown person informing Ramesh Chandra Mittal that he should be ready to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000. 00 for release of his father from the kidnappers. He was further informed that in case he could not arrange for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- he should arrange at least Rs. 50,00,000. 00. In the course of investigation it was found out that the second call was made from P. C. O. telephone No. 352919, which stood in the name of Sri K. P. Sharma, who on being questioned by the police expressed his inability to identify the person on being produced, though he gave out the features of the accused. Subsequently, the police got the information from the informant that the kidnapping could have been the action of residents of his village Saiya or some residents of nearby villages. ( 3 ) IT is stated in the grounds that this kidnapping incident raised a sense of fear amongst the business community of the locality; passers-by, who had witnessed the incident, fled from the place; traffic in the locality was disturbed and business establishments were closed on account of which serious disturbance to the public order was caused. Persons of the trading class approached senior police and administrative officers seeking protection and security and requested them to find out culprits involved in the incident. Due to the kidnapping incident people stopped going on morning walk and different political parties expressed concern about the effectiveness of the local administration. Resentment was expressed that incidents of kidnapping of persons of the business and trading class and demand of substantial amount as ransom for release have become common in the town. ( 4 ) ANOTHER incident stated in the grounds of detention relates to an incident of 5-9-1997 in which the petitioner was caught and was found in illegal possession of a country made 12 bore pistol and three cartridges while moving on a scooter in front of the police out-post Bundu Katra. On the basis of this Case Crime No. 325 of 1997 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at the same police station. On the basis of this Case Crime No. 325 of 1997 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at the same police station. ( 5 ) IT is further alleged that when he was in police custody, the petitioner made a statement that he was involved in the kidnapping case of Ram Swarup Mittal and also disclosed the place where the person kidnapped had been kept. On getting such information, when the police party reached the place there was an encounter with the miscreants who fled away leaving behind the person kidnapped. On this incident Case Crime No. 326 of 1997 was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the grounds that on account of this incident people became scared, ran helter and skelter, traffic on the road was disturbed, business establishments were closed, there was an atmosphere of fear and terror, people remained indoors, stopped going on morning walk and sense of fear and insecurity still prevails in the locality. ( 6 ) IT is further stated in the grounds that though the petitioner was in jail there was every likelihood of his being released on bail and the District Magistrate was satisfied that on being released from detention the petitioner is likely to indulge in criminal activities disturbing public order and he will try to take revenge on the family members of the person kidnapped. In the above circumstances, as stated in the grounds, the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner should be detained under the Act and on such satisfaction he passed the order of detention. ( 7 ) THE petitioners representation against the order of detention was rejected by the State Government and the order of detention was confirmed after obtaining the report of the Advisory Board. ( 7 ) THE petitioners representation against the order of detention was rejected by the State Government and the order of detention was confirmed after obtaining the report of the Advisory Board. ( 8 ) MAIN grounds of challenge against the detention order are : (1) that the allegations made in the grounds of detention do not make out any case of disturbance of public order; even accepting the allegations to be true the case made out is one of law and order; (2) that the order of detention is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority inasmuch as a single incident of kidnapping could not reasonably form the basis of subjective satisfaction that the petitioner had indulged in activities causing disturbance to the public order; (3) that no reliable material was available before the detaining authority to form the basis of his satisfaction that the petitioner, who was in detention, on being released was likely to indulge in activities which will disturb public order. ( 9 ) SRI Jagdish Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the aforementioned grounds in his argument and strenuously urged that on the facts and circumstances appearing from the record this case is not one of disturbance of public order but is a simple case of law and order. Elucidating the point, Sri Sengar urged that even in the first information report lodged by Ramesh Chandra Mittal there was no statement that the petitioner was involved in kidnapping Ram Swarup Mittal and that on account of the incident there was dislocation in the even tempo of life in the locality and public order had been disturbed. It is the contention of Sri Sengar that apprehending that the petitioner will be released on bail in the criminal case in which he was arrested, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention only to prevent the petitioner from being set at liberty. ( 10 ) SRI. A. K. Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate, equally strenuously contended that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case even a single incident of kidnapping for ransom can cause disturbance of public order and in the facts of this case there were materials before the detaining authority which could reasonably form the basis of his subjective satisfaction to that effect. Elucidating the point Sri Tripathi submitted that since Ram Swarup Mittal was a leading person of the business community of the town, the incident of his kidnapping naturally caused a sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of other people, particularly traders and businessmen of the city and such people felt scared to move out freely and thus even tempo of life of the locality was disturbed. He mainly placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Dayal v. State of U. P. , (1991 All WC 1066 ). ( 11 ) WE have perused the records placed before us and we have carefully considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. In our view the contentions raised by Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar have substance. The incidence of kidnapping was not witnessed by anybody. Nobody made any statement implicating the petitioner in kidnapping of Ram Swarup Mittal. All that was available to the police from the statement of his son Ramesh Chandra Mittal was that his father (Ram Swarup Mittal), who had gone for morning walk, had not returned and after some time he (Ramesh Chandra Mittal) had received a telephone call from an unknown person informing him that his father had been kidnapped and after some time he again received a call from an unknown person that he should be prepared to pay at least Rs. 50,00,000. 00 to secure release of his father. The only material available on record against the petitioner was a statement allegedly made by him before the police while in custody on the basis of which the police party tried to secure the release of the kidnapped person. The place from which the kidnapped person (Ram Swarup Mittal) was rescued by the police at about 7. 30 p. m. in the evening was an isolated place in the middle of open Bajra field where he was sitting under a tree. No other person was present at the place when the alleged incident took place. On such material it cannot be reasonably held that the detaining authority could feel satisfied that due to the incident the even tempo of life of the locality had been disturbed. No other person was present at the place when the alleged incident took place. On such material it cannot be reasonably held that the detaining authority could feel satisfied that due to the incident the even tempo of life of the locality had been disturbed. The position is fairly well settled that any incident involving criminal activity is likely to cause some self restriction on the normal activities of the people and thereby cause some disturbance in the order of the society but that is not sufficient to say that there has been disturbance of public order. ( 12 ) COMING to the decision in Bhagwant Dayal 1991 All WC 1066 (supra), we find that the case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the detenu was arrested when moving in a Maruti Car with the kidnapped boy; it was found that the detenu was a member of a gang habitually engaged in such activities and relying on several newspaper cuttings, copies of which had been furnished to the detenu, the Court found that in the media it had been reported that for quite some time certain gangs had been operating in the district of Ghaziabad who had been kidnapping persons for ransom which had created a sense of insecurity amongst people of Ghaziabad particularly amongst the industrialists and business class. This Court held that the test which has to be applied in such a case is whether the activity of the detenu is such which indicates that he must have been acting earlier also as a member of some gang indulged in unlawful activities such as dacoity, robbery, kidnapping etc. or not. Testing the present case on the touch-stone of the above principle, we do not find any material showing that the petitioner was either a member of any such gang engaged in criminal activities like kidnapping, nor is there any material that the petitioner had been involved in any such incident previously. As noted earlier, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the present incident is based on statements said to have been made by him while in police custody which led the police party to the place (open field) from where the kidnapped person was rescued. Another matter which is relevant for consideration is that on the date of the impugned detention order the petitioner was already in custody. Another matter which is relevant for consideration is that on the date of the impugned detention order the petitioner was already in custody. From the grounds it appears that the detaining authority was aware of the fact of petitioners detention and the attempt being made by him for being released on bail; but the further statement made in the grounds that the detaining authority was satisfied that in case he is released on bail the petitioner will indulge in such activities disturbing public order is not based on any cogent and reliable material. The position of law is equally well settled that a preventive detention order for detaining a person, who is already in detention, can only be passed if the detaining authority on the basis of cogent and reliable material feels satisfied that there are compelling reasons to believe that in case the person in detention is released on bail he will again indulge in activities prejudicial to the public order. If any decision in support of this view is necessary we may refer to Smt. Shashi Agarwal v. State of U. P. , 1988 SCC (Cri) 178 : ( AIR 1988 SC 596 , Anand Prakash v. State of U. P. , 1990 SCC (Cri) 96 : ( AIR 1990 SC 516 ), Ahmad Hussain Sheikh Hussain v. C. P. Ahmedabad, 1990 SCC (Cri) 86, Dharmendra Sugan Chandra Chelawat v. Union of India, 1990 SCC (Cri) 249 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1196 ) and Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. , 1994 SCC 1691. ( 13 ) ON the discussions made and for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs the writ petition is allowed, the order of detention dated 6th of October, 1997 (Annexure I) is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith unless his detention in jail is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed. .