JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---An order of detention was passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, on 11-12-98 whereby the petitioner's son Pritam alias Gotya Balkrishna Parab was detained by invoking the provisions of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, as a dangerous person. The order of detention was served on the detenu on the next day itself i.e. on 12-12-98 along with the grounds of detention as also dated 11-12-98, which are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The grounds of detention mainly founded on one C.R. No. 314/98 registered by Dadar Police Station and two in camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B'. Mr. Kuldip Patil though raised several contentions in the writ petition has pressed before us only two points. Firstly he contended that allegations contained in the aforesaid C.R. does not disclose the prejudicial activities of the detenu effecting the public order so as to confer power on the first respondent to invoke section 3(1) of the Act. He contended that only in camera statement of the witnesses show the activities of the detenu effecting the public order. He contended that when C.R. is not disclosed necessary grounds for invoking the provisions of section 3(1) merely relying on the in-camera statements, is not safe and legal to pass a detention order against the petitioner as it lacks any material to do so. He also referred in order to fortify his argument, a decision rendered by Division Bench in Cri.W.P. No. 354/99 dated 10-8-99. We have examined the contention of the petitioner's Counsel. For the better appreciation of the contention of the petitioner's Counsel, it is necessary to extract the allegation contained in the C.R., as enumerated in ground 4(A) of the grounds of detention. "4(a) Shri Navin Murji Shah, aged 48 years, is a resident of Tulsibag Building, 8/7 Chandavarkar Marg, Borivali, Mumbai 400092. He is dealing in readymade garments and has a shop at Suraj Building, A/16 below Elphinston Bridge, Mandulkar Marg, Parel, Mumbai. His son Jatin Shah, aged 22 years, assist him in the said business." 4(a)(i) on 31-8-1998 at 13.10 hours, Shri Jatin Navin Shah left his house to go to his business firm. He reached there at 15.00 hours. He is dealing in readymade garments and has a shop at Suraj Building, A/16 below Elphinston Bridge, Mandulkar Marg, Parel, Mumbai. His son Jatin Shah, aged 22 years, assist him in the said business." 4(a)(i) on 31-8-1998 at 13.10 hours, Shri Jatin Navin Shah left his house to go to his business firm. He reached there at 15.00 hours. At 15.15 hours your associate Babaji Pol alias Bandya went to his shop and asked Jatin Shah to close the door. Your associate Babaji Pol alias Bandya further threatened Jatin saying that he was a gangster from Amar Ashwin Naik gang and said that he was paid Rs. 5 lakhs as Supari to eliminate Jatin Shah. Your associate further said that the amount was given by a person to do away with him. At this juncture, you went there and threatened Jatin Shah to accompany you your associate quietly, else he would be killed. Jatin Shah got scared and followed you and your associate along with Jatin Shah reached Elphinston Road, your other associate Rajesh Devraj Naidu who was standing there stopped a motor taxi and forced Jatin Shah to sit in it and you and your said two associates took him to a blue coloured chawl like building at Arthur Road. Jatin Shah was made to sit in the open courtyard and was informed in Hindi. vÒh gekjk Òkà Á;ssxk o¨ t¨ Òh iqNsssssxk mldk tokc lgh nsusdk] ugh rks rq>s ekj MkysaxkA You and your associate also asked Jatin Shah to give his written statement as per the request of your leader, other wise he would be killed. Within half an hour, your leader Nagesh Prabhakar Karande, whom you and your associates referred as Bhai came to the place and threatened Jatin Shah that he was paid Rs. 5 lakhs to kill Jatin Shah and that if he could give you and your associates Rs. 5 lakhs he would be spared. Your associate Nagesh Karande gave a mobile phone in the hands of Jatin Shah and threatened him to phone to his house his father ask him to bring Rs. 5 lakhs as ransom for Amar Naik gang and the said amount to be brought by 20.00 hours or Jatin Shah would be killed. 5 lakhs he would be spared. Your associate Nagesh Karande gave a mobile phone in the hands of Jatin Shah and threatened him to phone to his house his father ask him to bring Rs. 5 lakhs as ransom for Amar Naik gang and the said amount to be brought by 20.00 hours or Jatin Shah would be killed. Thereafter, you and your associates forced him to make such a telephone call and took back the mobile phone from him and threatened Jatin's father to bring the amount near Santoshi Mata Temple at Arthur Road Naka, Jatin Shah's father Navin Shah agreed to pay the amount on phone and disconnected the phone." 4(a)(ii) After the receipt of the said first telephone call a 16.45 hours on Phone No. 8087206 installed in Navin Shah's house, Shri Navin Shah rang to the garment firm on Phone No. 4138304 and enquired about Jatin Shah. A servant Rajesh informed him that Jatin Shah was kidnapped by three persons at 15.30 hours from the garment shop. Thereafter, Navin Shah consulted his well wishers who advised him to report the matter at Kalachowki Police Station. Hence Navin Shah, his wife Smt. Damayanti and son-in-law Shri Ratan reached Parel by motor taxi and asked traffic police at Bharat Mata junction as to where was police chowki. The traffic police gave him the address of Lalbaug Police Chowki. Navin Shah and others then met D.C.P. Zone-III at Lalbaug Police Chowki and informed that his son Jatin Shah was kidnapped. D.C.P. Zone-III directed Police Inspector Shri Pereira of Kalachowki Police Station to record his statement and to pursue enquiries. Accordingly Kalachowki Police Station registered an offence under section 364, 387, 34 I.P.C. vide C.R. No. 00/98 on 31/08/1998 at 20.35 hours. 4(a)(iii) you and your associates took Jatin Shah to a public telephone and asked him to ring to his father. It was at about 19.15 hours. Accordingly when Jatin Shah telephoned to his house, his sister informed him that parents and brother-in-law have already left the house. 4(a)(iii) you and your associates took Jatin Shah to a public telephone and asked him to ring to his father. It was at about 19.15 hours. Accordingly when Jatin Shah telephoned to his house, his sister informed him that parents and brother-in-law have already left the house. You and your associated detained Jatin Shah near the said telephone booth for five minutes and at that time your associate Babaji Pol alias Bandya pointed out a knife at him and threatened him that he would be killed if the money was not brought within time." 4(a)(iv) At 20.30 hours, you and your associates took Jatin Shah to Chinchpokli (East), where he was threatened to telephone to his house from a panwala's shop. At this time also, his sister who attended the phone in his house said that the parents would reach there soon. Your leader Nagesh Karande then came there, threatened Jatin Shah further and led him to a petrol pump near Saibaba Mandir, Chinchpokali (West). After sometime, Jatin Shah was taken near Santoshi Mata Mandir by you and your associates." 4(a)(v) Police Inspector and a police party accompanied by Navin Shah and Ratan reached near Santoshi Mata Mandir after Jatin Shah was taken to the place by you and your associates. Spotting Jatin Shah in your company, Police party advanced at you and your associates, upon which your associates Rajesh Naidu and Nagesh Karande started running away. You and your associates Babaji Pol @ Bandya were detained by police along with Jatin Shah." 4(a)(vi) Thereafter, you and your associate Babaji Pol @ Bandya and also Jatin Shah, his father Navin Shah and brother-in-law Ratan were taken to Kalachowki Police Station. On 1-9-1998 at 6.00 hours, you and your associates Babaji Pol @ Bandya were handed over to Dadar Police Station in this connection. Dadar Police Station registered an offence under section 364, 387, 34 I.P.C. vide C.R. No. 314/98. You and your associate Babaji Pol @ Bandya were arrested in this case." 4(a)(vii) During the course of investigation, statements of Navin Shah, Jatin Shah, Ratan Walecha and Baban Palve were recorded when they corroborated the relevant facts as narrated above." 3. It is true that the allegation contained in C.R. does not expressly state that the prejudicial activities of the petitioner caused sign of terror in the public and public has run helter and skelter etc. It is true that the allegation contained in C.R. does not expressly state that the prejudicial activities of the petitioner caused sign of terror in the public and public has run helter and skelter etc. so as to show the public order is imparied. But on analysing the facts contained in C.R., we find that the prejudicial activities of the petitioner is likely to cause public danger and his activities will be threat to the public order. It is stated in the C.R. that at about 15.15 hours on 31-8-98 the detenu's associates Babaji Pol alias Bandya went to the shop of Jatin Navin Shah and asked him to close the door. Further the detenu's associate Babaji Pol alias Bandya threatened Jatin, saying that he was a gangster from Amar/Ashwin Naik gang and said that he was paid Rs. 5 lakhs as supari to eliminate Jatin Shah, and the detenu and his associate thereafter threatened Jatin Shah to accompany them quietly otherwise he would be killed. Jatin Shah got scared and followed the detenu and his associate. Then when detenu and his associate reached Elephinston Road, stopped a motor taxi and forced Jatin Shah to sit in it and detenu and his associate took him to a blue coloured chawl like building at Arthur Road. Jatin Shah was made to sit in the open courtyard and conformed him in Hindi. vÒh gekjk Òkà Á;ssxk o¨ t¨ Òh iqNsssssxk mldk tokc lgh nsusdk] ugh rks rq>s ekj MkysaxkA and threatened to give his written statement as per the request of the leader Nagesh Prabhakar Karande as Bhai came to the place and threatened Jatin Shah that he was paid Rs. 5 lakhs to kill Jatin Shah and that if he could give another Rs. 5 lakhs, he would be spared. Thereafter the detenu and his associates forced Jatin Shah to make a telephone call to his father and threatened the father to bring the amount near Santoshi Mata Temple at Arthur Road Naka, and Jatin Shah's father had agreed to pay the amount on telephone. Activities narrated in the C.R. will likely to create panic and reign of terror in the public. Because the offence was committed in a public place in a broad day light. The owner of the shops was asked to close the door. Activities narrated in the C.R. will likely to create panic and reign of terror in the public. Because the offence was committed in a public place in a broad day light. The owner of the shops was asked to close the door. Therefore, the manner in which the offence was committed will definitely affect the public order though in so many words the public reaction to the offence has not been stated in the grounds of detention. 4. It is relevant at this stage to refer to the explanation of section 2(a) of the Act. Explanation :---"For the purpose of this Clause (a), public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause, directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health." In view of the explanation any activities directly or indirectly that cause harm, danger or feeling of insecurity among the general public will enable the authorities to invoke the provisions of law of detention. We therefore find no merits in the first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Another contention of the learned Counsel is that the in-camera statements were made mala fide and there are several inconsistencies in those statements. However in the writ petition we are not called upon to examine the sufficiency of the material contained in the grounds. But one significant factor, in this case is that a very clear and cautious approach has been adopted by the first respondent before passing the detention order. On merely committing an offence under the C.R. the detaining authority has not decided to detain the petitioner. But during the investigation of that offence, it has come to the notice of the investigation agency that the petitioner had committed similar offence in earlier occasions. Therefore the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu is a habitual offender in committing similar offences, which touch upon the public order and peace of the locality. But during the investigation of that offence, it has come to the notice of the investigation agency that the petitioner had committed similar offence in earlier occasions. Therefore the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu is a habitual offender in committing similar offences, which touch upon the public order and peace of the locality. In view of the above analysis of the facts of this case, we do not find that our decision in Writ Petition No. 354/98 will have any bearing on the facts of this case. Our decision in that case was solely based on the facts of that case. 6. Secondly, petitioner's Counsel contended that the prejudicial activities which were lastly committed by the detenu was on 3-8-98 and the detention order was passed on 1-12-98. This three months delay is fatal to the detention order as the live link between the prejudicial activities and the rationale of passing the detention order is snapped. 7. As we pointed out earlier during the course of the crime in C.R. No. 314/98 the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner is a habitual offender coming under the definition of dangerous person. Therefore, the detention order was passed. In there circumstances taking into account the propensity and potentiality to commit the crime by the detenu and time spent for investigation of the crime, we find there is no undue (delay sic) to continue detention, becomes illegal. 8. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in this writ petition. Writ petition therefore fails and it is dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged. Petition dismissed. -----