A. PASAYAT, C. J. ( 1 ) IN this application for habeas corpus under Art. 236 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the 'constitution'), Padma Sahu, mother of Raju alias Raj Kishore Sahu hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') has questioned the order of detention dated 26-11-1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Puri in purported exercise of power under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, the 'act' ). ( 2 ) CASE of petitioner in essence is that because of local dispute, the detenu and his brother Santosh were falsely implicated in a criminal case wherein allegations of assaults on one Sanjaya Kumar Sahu were made. This led to lodging of information at the Police Station. There was no truth in the allegations made and no such incident took place. But with mala fide intention false and implicated reports were given at the police station implicating the detenu. A case under S. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') was registered against the detenu. Though detenu has been described as anti social with ill reputation in the locality with allegation that he was indulging in large number of criminal and anti social activities, same was the outcome of rivalry and absolutely false. Though detention order was issued, yet no representation could be filed as father of detenu was admitted to the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. Detenu being in custody was unable to collect necessary documents. Petitioner being a lady was unable to prepare the representation on behalf of her son. Though representation was not filed, yet there should have been reference to the Advisory Board. Even though statutory period of seven weeks was over, no decision was taken by the Advisory Board. In essence it is stated that there was non-compliance of statutory requirements. Additionally it has been submitted that the order of detention was passed while detenu was in custody thereby vitiating the same. ( 3 ) IT is to be noted that grounds of detention have not been annexed to the writ petition. State of Orissa represented by Collector, Puri is opp. party No. 1. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government represented by Secretary, Home (Special Section) Department (opp. party No. 2 ). ( 3 ) IT is to be noted that grounds of detention have not been annexed to the writ petition. State of Orissa represented by Collector, Puri is opp. party No. 1. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government represented by Secretary, Home (Special Section) Department (opp. party No. 2 ). In the said counter it has been stated that the State Government on perusal of relevant documents including grounds of detention approved detention order by Department order No. 6169/c dated 7-12-1998. The Central Government was also informed about the detention by Department letter No. 6174/c dated 7-12-1998. According to opp. party No. 2, detention order clearly reflects activities of detenu which affected public order. Gruesome acts have been highlighted which affected even tempo of life of the community. Grievance that there was no reference to the Advisory Board in due time is false. Not only case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board, but also he was heard by the Board and after consideration of relevant material the board has opined that detention is legal and valid. In fact, order under S. 12 (1) of the Act has been passed on 16-1-1999, with due intimation to the detenu. Stand of detenu that no representation could be made is false, as in fact, the representation was made by the detenu on 5-12-1998 has duly been considered by the State Government, and District Magistrate, Puri was informed about the fact of non-acceptance thereof. Detenu has been duly informed about the same. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that there has been infraction of the constitutional mandate and requisite safeguards have not been adhered to. Further the effect of detenu being in custody has not been considered by the detaining authority. Learned counsel for State submitted that detention was in order. ( 5 ) AT this juncture, it is necessary to take note of, that grounds of detention were not annexed to the writ petition. Pursuant to our direction, entire file was produced, Grounds of detention reveal that several acts committed by the detenu are gruesome and are of such nature as were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Primary stand of challenge is that order of detention was passed while the detenu was in custody and thereby is vitiated. This plea needs careful consideration. Primary stand of challenge is that order of detention was passed while the detenu was in custody and thereby is vitiated. This plea needs careful consideration. Order of detention, as records reveal clearly indicates that the detaining authority was conscious that detenu was in jail custody. Detention was felt necessary as it was apprehended that as soon as he is released, he will again resort to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 6 ) IN cases where the detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in Jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail and stating the necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention. The decision must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order, etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when detenu is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. (See N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 2027 : (1989 Cri LJ 2190) Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196 : (1990 Cri LJ 1232 ). The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991 Cri LJ 2058 ). The principles were set out as follows. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 2027 : (1989 Cri LJ 2190) Dharmendra Suganchand v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1196 : (1990 Cri LJ 1232 ). The point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991 Cri LJ 2058 ). The principles were set out as follows. Even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him; (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities, and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand, the order of detention and grounds of detention show awareness of detenu being in custody, possibility of release on bail, and apprehension of continued prejudicial activities. As many as 14 instances have been highlighted which according to detaining authority indicated magnitude of criminal attitude of the detenu. Though order detailing grounds of detention has not been annexed, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that activities at the most constituted law and order situation and had no nexus with public order. ( 7 ) THE impact on 'public Order' and 'law and Order' depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. What might be an otherwise simple 'law and Order' situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a 'public Order' problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out. Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it. Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it. Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilisation of the day. Order is the basic need of any organised civilised society and any attempt to disturb that order affects the society and the community. The distinction between breach of 'law and Order' and disturbance of 'public Order' is one of the degree and the extent of reach of the activity in question upon the society. In their essential quality, the activities which affect 'law and Order' and those which disturb 'public Order' may not be different but in their potentiality and effect upon even tempo of the society and public tranquility there is a vast difference. In each case, therefore, the Courts have to see the length, magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of a person to find out whether his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of 'public Order' or only 'law and Order. ' These aspects were highlighted by Apex Court in Smt. Tarannum v. Union of India (1998) 14 OCR (SC) 337 : (1998 Cri LJ 1414 ). Ghastly acts described in the grounds of detention leave no manner of doubt that public peace and tranquillity was affected by heinous acts of the detenu, and the detaining authority was justified in directing detention. ( 8 ) THERE is no gainsaying that in the present state of law, a criminal can be punished only when the prosecution is able to lead evidence and prove the case against an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution is unable to lead evidence to prove its case, the case fails, though that failure does not imply that no crime had been committed. Where the prosecution case fails, because witnesses are reluctant on account of fear of relation to come forward to depose against an accused, obviously, the crime would go unpunished and the criminal would be encouraged. In the ultimate analysis, it is the society which suffers. Respect for law has to be maintained in the interest of the society and discouragement of a criminal is one of the ways to maintain it. In the ultimate analysis, it is the society which suffers. Respect for law has to be maintained in the interest of the society and discouragement of a criminal is one of the ways to maintain it. The objectionable activities of a detenu have, therefore, to be judged in the totality of the circumstances to find out whether those activities have any prejudicial effect on the society as a whole or not. If the society, and not only an individual, suffers on account of the questi- onable activities of a person, then those activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public Order' and are not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of 'law and Order. ' There is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( 9 ) CH. P. K. MISRA, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed.