S. K. AGARWAL, J. This petition was filed by the petitioner Irshad for quashing the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter) referred to as (nsa) on 16-4-2004. 2. The order was passed by the District Magistrate consequently on the abovesaid date as sponsored by the Station Officer, P. S, Mawana, on 15-4-2004 and recommended by the Circle Officer, S. P. (Rural) and S. S. P. , Meerut, on 15th and 16th instant. The petitioner submitted his representation on 18-5-2004 through Jail Superintendent. It was received in the office of the District Magistrate on the same day. It was sent to the S. S. P. , Meerut, for parawise comments, the same day. The comments were received from S. S. P. , Meerut on 19-5-2004. On the same day the representation alongwith the above comments, and the comments by the District Magistrate were sent to the State Government. In the meantime the State Government approved and confirmed the detention of the petitioner. The District Magistrate also forwarded the detenues representation of the above date to the Central Government through its letter dated 19-5-2004. The representation was received by the State Government on 20-5-2004. The State Government forwarded the representation along with the comments to the U. P. Advisory Board vide its letter dated 21-5-2004. The representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 25-5-2004. Detailed notes were prepared by the concerned section of the State Government on 21-5-2004. The Under Secretary, Home & Confidential Department, Government of U. P. , examined it on 21-5-2004 and thereafter forwarded the same to the Secretary. 22nd and 23rd May, 2004 being Saturday and Sunday, the rest days, the Secretary examined it on 24-5-2004. It was submitted to the concerned authority in the State Government for final orders. As earlier said, on the very next date it was rejected. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenue through district authorities by the State Government by a radiogram dated 26-5-2004. Thus, there apparently was no delay, in disposal of the representation made by the State Government. No such grievance was, however, raised by the detenue before us. 3. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner in person and also considered his representation on 21-5- 2004, the date fixed by it for the hearing. Thus, there apparently was no delay, in disposal of the representation made by the State Government. No such grievance was, however, raised by the detenue before us. 3. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner in person and also considered his representation on 21-5- 2004, the date fixed by it for the hearing. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the Government expressing its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. It was received on 3- 6-2004 by the Government. After receipt of the Advisory Boards report his case was again re-examined in the light of the opinion of the Advisory Board. The detention order, thereafter, again was confirmed by the State Government. 4. The fact of submission of the representation and service of the detention order upon the petitioner along with all the relevant papers were confirmed by the counter affidavits of the Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Meerut. Rejoinders were filed to these counter affidavits by Abdul Waheed. The law was followed fully. 5. The brief facts giving rise to the impugned detention order are as under: A young boy, aged 7 years, was kidnapped during the day at about 3. 00 p. m. on 28-2-2004 from his house. A report of Gumsudgi was lodged by the father of the boy at P. S. Mawana at 10. 30 p. m. In the meantime between the kidnapping and lodging of the report frantic search for the boy was made but it yielded no results. The father and his companions, who set out in search of the boy in the entire area, could not get any clue about him on that date. Normal report of Gumsudgi was taken down at the police station as & Daryaft Hal (DH ). The case in such cases is not generally registered in a regular manner initially. An enquiry in such matters is conducted first by the police. Consequently, when the informant could collect some information on 2-3-2004, he filed proper written report narrating the facts and circumstances that came to his notice in between. He stated in this F. I. R. that on an enquiry from the locals he came to know that his son Umesh was abducted by Irshad son of Abdul Waheed and he was taking him towards his Kolhu (sugarcane crusher ). The informant says that he himself has seen Irshad coming out of that field. He stated in this F. I. R. that on an enquiry from the locals he came to know that his son Umesh was abducted by Irshad son of Abdul Waheed and he was taking him towards his Kolhu (sugarcane crusher ). The informant says that he himself has seen Irshad coming out of that field. Therefore, he became certain that Lomesh was abducted by him. In the meantime he also learnt that Irshad had operated his furnace (Bhatta) on the night of 28th 29th and some foul smell was emanating from it. After learning this much he made enquiries from the people living in the vicinity of the above Kolhu. These persons from whom he made enquiries were Hari, Pushkar, Rohtas etc. They told the informant that from the furnace of the sugarcane crusher of Irshad foul smell of human flesh was emanating. It was further revealed by these persons to the informant that they had seen his son being thrown into the furnace by Irshad and sons of Waheed. He and his elder brother thereafter elicited some more information from other labour also. They are Om Veer, Padam Singh, Raghuveer, Dara son of Padam Singh. These people in a low tone confirmed what was told to the informant by Pushkar, Hari Prakash and Rohtas. They were in fear. Thus, the informant concluded that these persons knew about the murder of his son and his throwing into the burning furnace. As soon as this information spread amongst the villagers they collected at one place and moved towards the Kolhu of the petitioner. They dug it out. On digging the furnace, the bones of a child and Kada, were found. When the information about this dastardly act spread further, people in his village and villages in the vicinity were gripped by panic and fear. A mob rushed to the scene of occurrence. Young children had locked themselves inside their houses. Panic and tension was visible all around. As earlier stated, on 15- 4-2004 the Station Officer, P. S. Mawana, sponsored for the detention of the petitioner and on the same day both the Circle Officer and S. P. (Rural),recommended his detention and forwarded the file to S. S. P. , Meerut, who made his recommendation on 16-4-2004. Panic and tension was visible all around. As earlier stated, on 15- 4-2004 the Station Officer, P. S. Mawana, sponsored for the detention of the petitioner and on the same day both the Circle Officer and S. P. (Rural),recommended his detention and forwarded the file to S. S. P. , Meerut, who made his recommendation on 16-4-2004. This is also the date on which the District Magistrate, after an application of his mind to the facts so revealed by the report of the sponsoring authority and the documents submitted along with it, passed the impugned detention order against the petitioner. 6. The recovered bones were sent to the Scientific Laboratory, Agra, on 4-3-2004 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The result was not appended to the petition. 7. The investigation in the case was commenced only on a direction from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is Annexure 9 to the petition. Thus to roll the investigation into motion the informant had to make frantic efforts. After the offence was revealed by the informant to the police on 2-3-2004 by his second detailed report, what happened on second report had already been discussed that the furnace of the brick kiln (Kolhu) was dug out by the informant and villagers and in the process neck and some parts of the chest, teeth, jaws and some partially burnt hair were recovered. Agitated villagers and the crowd prevented the police to proceed further on that date. The recovered articles were kept in a gunny bag by the villagers and they all rushed on a tractor-trolley to Mawana outpost with it. A jam was caused at Meerut-Bijnor highway. A total commotion was caused there. Large row of vehicles on either side was waiting for the clearance of the jam. The police had to take serious measures to contend with the situation. Additional force was called from Mawana. Senior officers were informed of the deteriorating situation. The Circle Officer, Mukul Dwivedi, arrived along with a posse of police force. He got the jam removed by persuading the agitated villagers. Inquest proceedings could be completed thereafter in his presence. The information of this dastardly act spread like a wild fire into the adjoining villages including village Ataura. The villagers of village Ataura rushed to the place. They also set afire the house of Irshad and his brother Asfaq. He got the jam removed by persuading the agitated villagers. Inquest proceedings could be completed thereafter in his presence. The information of this dastardly act spread like a wild fire into the adjoining villages including village Ataura. The villagers of village Ataura rushed to the place. They also set afire the house of Irshad and his brother Asfaq. Receiving its information, police was rushed to that village also from P. S. Mawana. One platoon of P. A. C. was also summoned from Meerut police line and was posted in village Ataura of which the petitioner is also a resident. The disturbed public order in village Ataura was somehow contained by the administration and the police together. A report about the setting afire the house of Irshad and Asfaq by the mob was registered at P. S. Mawana as Crime No. 70 under Sections 147/437/427 I. P. C. against some 30-35 unknown persons. The petitioner was arrested on 4-3-2004. He admitted his guilt before the police and police got recovered from a Kothari in the crusher from beneath a gunny bag silver chain. He also produced the stool, standing on which the dead body of Lomesh was thrown by him into the furnace. The case was registered against Irshad etc. at Crime No. 69 of 2004 under Sections 364/302/201 I. P. C. and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He was remanded to judicial custody and was in jail when the detention order was passed and served on him. 8. The order of detention became necessary because his release may have put in jeopardy the public tranquility in the region. The accused-petitioner was making frantic efforts to be out on bail. In that direction he had filed a bail application before the District Judge. It was pending when the said order was passed. This fact was very much in the notice of the District Magistrate when he passed this detention order against him. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate. There are some relevant reports also which were taken down in the General Diary (for short called as gd) of the concerned police station Mawana regarding departure of the police force to village Ataura on 3-3- 2004. GD No. 18 at 9. 15 regarding Chakka jam on Bijnor-Meerut highway. GD No. 19 at 10. There are some relevant reports also which were taken down in the General Diary (for short called as gd) of the concerned police station Mawana regarding departure of the police force to village Ataura on 3-3- 2004. GD No. 18 at 9. 15 regarding Chakka jam on Bijnor-Meerut highway. GD No. 19 at 10. 10 on the same day, it relates to the receipt of the information about setting afire the house of the petitioner and his brother. GD No. 25 at 2. 20 on this date pertains to the arrival of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (for short called as pac) and its posting in village Ataura. The matter was reported broadly in local newspapers, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran, also on 3-3-2004 and 5-3-2004. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri D. N. Wali and learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Tripathi for the State of U. P. No one appeared for the Central Government, though a counter affidavit from the Central Government is on record. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits as under: Firstly, the material on record does not indicate any application of mind by the District Magistrate. Secondly, there is no intention exposed from the allegations made against the petitioner that kidnap or abduction alleged against him was with any intention to disturb peace and tranquility of the area, i. e. public order. There is no demand of ransom from them. There was also no evidence of any animus, in existence, between the informant and the accused. However, it is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the involvement of the petitioner in this crime was on account of a particular political party. He particularly names Bharatiya Janta Party (for short called bjp) and its local leaders. No name of any member of this political party who was instrumental was disclosed in the petition. It is also not asserted that he himself belongs to any political party. Lastly, that the offence relates only to law and order and possess no potential to disturb the public order or tranquility of the region where the offence was committed. In the nutshell he wants to assert that any such mens rea in the offence is completely lacking. 11. Now taking up his submissions one by one we find that there is no force in submission No. 1. In the nutshell he wants to assert that any such mens rea in the offence is completely lacking. 11. Now taking up his submissions one by one we find that there is no force in submission No. 1. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate. We have also taken full notice of promptitude with which the administration moved in this case. The events that we have discussed earlier including Chakka jam on 3-3-2004 on Meerut-Bijnor highway by a large mob assembled there from different places, spreading of the news of ghastly murder of Lomesh in the above said manner, caused serious commotion in the adjoining areas including village of the accused persons, Ataura. The setting afire by collection of a large mob inside the village, from the village and from adjoining areas, the houses of the accused persons, the petitioner and his brother, rushing in of police force along with Circle Officer to get the jam removed and get the proceeding of inquest completed, rushing of additional force to village Ataura from police outpost Mawana on demand, summoning a platoon of PAC to village Ataura and its consequent posting there, are such crucial circumstances from which we have to appreciate the submission No. 3. The import of all the above factors occurring on 3-3-2004 clearly indicate that spread of the information of this inhuman murder caused arrow reaction upon the public of the region. It created a jam on the highway, burning of the houses in village Ataura of the two accused, calling of additional force there to quell the rioters initially and then posting a platoon of PAC to keep the situation under control are the circumstances which tend to indicate necessarily that their offence had the potential to disturb the public order. Its arm and reach had not spared the public tranquility even 4-5 days after the occurrence of abduction and murder of that young boy aged 7 years. The situation worsened on 2-3-2004 when a subsequent detailed report was submitted to the police of P. S. Mawana. On 3rd when the police was digging out the furnace to recover the skeleton in which some parts of the body, i. e. chest, skull, half-burnt hair from the skull, some bones, etc. were recovered by the police. The mob did not allow the police to proceed further and prepare the inquest. On 3rd when the police was digging out the furnace to recover the skeleton in which some parts of the body, i. e. chest, skull, half-burnt hair from the skull, some bones, etc. were recovered by the police. The mob did not allow the police to proceed further and prepare the inquest. It snatched all the recovered bones etc. from the police, kept them in a gunny bag and proceeded to Mawana police outpost in the vicinity of Bijnor-Meerut highway. A jam was caused there which was removed by the Circle Officer, Mukul Dwivedi with great difficulty and persuasion of the mob. The disturbance in village Ataura, the place of abode of the petitioner, burning of their house etc. , clearly point to this fact alone and no other conclusion is permissible or possible. 12. This must have given rise to some communal tension also amongst the members of these two religions, who were living in the area of the crime. A sense of insecurity must have prevailed into the minds of minority (Muslims), the anguish and anger into the other Section of the mass in habitation was also a matter of concern for the authorities. They have to strike a balance between the rival factions. Assuage the hurt caused to one sect and ensure the other sect of their security and safety was of prime concern for the administration. To keep any future fall out of this crime at bay must be their prime concern. Thus, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the District Magistrate erred in concluding subjectively that the detention of the petitioner was necessary. Without it, peace would not have been restored. His efforts to come out on bail and the possibility that he may succeed in coming out on bail was considered clearly before passing the order and the conclusion drawn, in our opinion, does not call for any interference from this Court. 13. It is improper to suggest in the circumstances that the detention order was passed solely to prevent the petitioner from being released on bail. The circumstances enumerated above clearly establish beyond any doubt that the situation was such that the likelihood of further disturbance to the public order was not to be ruled out all together. 13. It is improper to suggest in the circumstances that the detention order was passed solely to prevent the petitioner from being released on bail. The circumstances enumerated above clearly establish beyond any doubt that the situation was such that the likelihood of further disturbance to the public order was not to be ruled out all together. In our view, it did exist even after a lapse of nearly two months, hence the detention order was well meaning and well founded. Without it the ice could not have been broken and the situation may not have been what it is now. His release on bail might have triggered further lawlessness in the society. 14. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the circumstances discussed above proved clinchingly and to the hilt that the incident had gained the potential and reach to disturb the public tranquility of the particular region or area from 2-3-2004 and the situation took a turn for the worse on 3-3-2004 after detection of the bones, part of the chest and some other articles belonging to the abducted and murdered boy from the furnace of the petitioners Kolhu on its digging in the presence of the police. The mob took control of the situation and did not allow the police to proceed further with the investigation and complete the formality of inquest. It was completed hours later when Chakka jam was cleared by Mukul Dwivedi on Bijnor-Meerut highway near Mawana outpost. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission so made. 15. Learned A. G. A. has also pointed out to the above facts during the course of his arguments and stressed that it is a clear case of public order and not simply law and order. Law and order is a wholesome situation and public order is only a specie of the same. Every breach of law, criminal especially, does not always have the potential or the reach to destruct the public safety and tranquility of the area where such offence was committed. The demarcation between the two is hairline. There are certain situations caused by an offence which at times had the potential to disturb the public tranquility thereby disturbing the even tempo of life of the society inhabiting the area of the crime. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. 16. The demarcation between the two is hairline. There are certain situations caused by an offence which at times had the potential to disturb the public tranquility thereby disturbing the even tempo of life of the society inhabiting the area of the crime. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. 16. Learned Counsel has cited a Division Bench decision before us. It was given in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7884 of 2000. It had laid stress upon the fact that the incident was confined to individual persons and it was a case of private crime as distinct from public order or disorder. We have gone through this judgment. The facts of this case are different from the facts of the present case and upon those facts the Bench came to a conclusion that it was a case of law and order simplicitor and the detention order was maliciously passed just to thwart the attempt of the petitioner to come out on bail. We have already discussed the circumstances that have taken place 2-3 days after the incident. The facts that were revealed by the report dated 2-3-2004 had the strength to put in jeopardy the public tranquility and safety in the area where the offence was perpetuated by the petitioner and his companion. The subsequent events prove it unquestionably. The line of demarcation that the incident had caused between the two Sections of the society cannot be ignored from our consideration. Proximity and harmony between the two Sections was adversely affected by this incident. In view of the above, we find that the judgment cited before us has no application to the facts of the impugned case. 17. Learned A. G. A. on the contrary had cited before us the case of the Commissioner of Police and others v. Smt. C. Anita reported in 2004 JT 355 . He also cited 2004 S. C Weekly Reporter 5314, State of U. P. v. Sanjay Gupta alias Pappu, AIR 1970 SC 1228 , Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal. Para 8 2004 JT 355 (supra) specially was cited to explain to us the distinction between law & order and public order. 18. He also cited 2004 S. C Weekly Reporter 5314, State of U. P. v. Sanjay Gupta alias Pappu, AIR 1970 SC 1228 , Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal. Para 8 2004 JT 355 (supra) specially was cited to explain to us the distinction between law & order and public order. 18. Taking into consideration the judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Smt. C. Anita (supra) wherein number of instances having the potential to disturb the public order were cited as instances to elaborate the distinction. A very thin line between law and order and the public order was delineated by the Honble apex Court. We have applied the said principle to the facts of the present case and in our opinion the facts have the potential indisputably, to cause serious disturbance to the public order and tranquility in the said village and its adjoining areas where the offence was committed. The submission, therefore, is rejected. 19. Taking up the submission No. 2 we find that the learned Counsel had ingeniously endeavored to entrap us into examining the particular aspect, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate objectively. The import of his submission necessarily points to it. We are conscious of the fact that this is beyond the realm of this Court. The law does not enjoin upon us this power. If this is being done, the purpose of this enactment would be frustrated out and out. Hence we prefer to refrain ourselves from the analysis of the satisfaction of the District Magistrate and do not want to enter into this contentious issue. These matters could very well be determined in the trial but not in this petition. Any determination on this point by us may adversely affect the trial Court, hence we refrain from expressing any opinion upon this, though it would be suffice to say that mensaria in an offence does not constitute a necessary ingredient so far as the detention under NSA is concerned. These enactments only require from a District Magistrate to satisfy himself subjectively from the facts brought to his notice in the context of detention of a person under Section 3 (2) of the said Act. The only thing to be seen by him is the need for the detention. The facts and circumstances do establish that the detaining authority did perform this obligation properly. The only thing to be seen by him is the need for the detention. The facts and circumstances do establish that the detaining authority did perform this obligation properly. We have, as earlier discussed, found a proper application of mind by the District Magistrate to the facts brought to his notice. By entering into the controversy so dearly raised before us we would be falling into the trap which we refuse to. The point is accordingly answered. 20. In view of our above discussions, the order of detention dated 16-4-2004 passed against the petitioner is confirmed. We do not find any fault with it as envisaged by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .