K. K. MISRA, J. In both the above Habeas Corpus writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a common prayer has been made for quashing the impugned detention order dated 29-6-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, respondent No. 3 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (briefly, the Act ). The detention order passed in both the cases is based on the same F. I. R. 2. Therefore, both the petitions are decided by this common order. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that on 2-6-2003 at about 6 p. m. both the petitioners committed the murder of six years old Pokai, son of Raghunath Yadav resident of village Mustafabad, P. S. Baksha, District Jaunpur and threw the dead body, keeping the same in a plastic bag, in the latrine of vacant quarter in the premises of water tank situate near Sudanipur Bazar. The dead body was recovered on 4-6-2003. On the information of Kamla Prasad Yadav an F. I. R. was registered at P. S. Madiyahoo and a case was registered as case Crime No. 278/03 under Sections 302/201 IPC against unknown persons. It is further alleged that in the areas falling under the territorial jurisdiction of P. S. Bakshi and Madiyahoo and nearby places, the people were fear stricken and started feeling insecure about their children. People in the area were so terrorized that they stopped sending their children outside the houses. In mango crop season, the children stopped going to mango groves. The freedom of children was jeopardized. To express their feeling concerning the safety of their children, the public came on streets in protest. On 21-6-2003 on Jaunpur-Lucknow road, public protest was organized blocking the road near Sudanipur Bazar, P. S. Madiyahoo, District Jaunpur. The shops were also got closed. Due to this, maintenance of public order was badly affected. 3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard Sri R. B. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A. G. A. 5. The short point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present case is that of law and order and not of public order. We have perused the F. I. R. , grounds of detention and the police report. The short point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present case is that of law and order and not of public order. We have perused the F. I. R. , grounds of detention and the police report. No body has been named in the F. I. R. No role has been assigned to the petitioners and the petitioner Ram Murat Yadav was the witness of the recovery of dead body. Moreover, the police report shows that there was enmity between the parties and the dead body has been recovered from an isolated place. All these facts considered together do not disclose a case of public order and the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is a case of law and order is fully supported by the material on record. 6. A solitary incident directed against a particular individual even if it may cause scare temporarily in the locality cannot be held to affect public order. Thus, where the incident on which the order of detention was based related to single act of kidnapping of an infant from the Court premises by the petitioner and his associates and the said act had no potentiality to disturb the public peace and tranquility but only related to law and order, the detention of the petitioner under the Act would be improper. (See 1986 All LJ 312 ). The case in hand is on better footing. In the present case, no body was named in the F. I. R. There was no material before the detaining authority that detenu was habitually engaged in such activity. It was held in 1995 Cri LJ 2657 (SC), that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu might indulge in serious offence causing threat to public order, solely on the basis of a solitary murder, would not be proper. 7. In the present case there was no material to warrant the inference that detenu would repeat the misconduct or do anything else which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. No criminal history of the petitioners has been given in the grounds of detention. Also there was no material on record to show that the petitioners were involved in the same kind of offences. The petitioners were not named in the F. I. R. Petitioners are father and son. No criminal history of the petitioners has been given in the grounds of detention. Also there was no material on record to show that the petitioners were involved in the same kind of offences. The petitioners were not named in the F. I. R. Petitioners are father and son. Learned A. G. A. could not point out any material to support the detention order that it was a case disturbance of public order. 8. In view of what has been stated above, we find that it was a case of "law and Order" and the District Magistrate, Jaunpur was not justified in passing the impugned detention order. Consequently, the continued detention of the petitioners is rendered illegal. We, therefore, allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned detention order dated 29-6-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. The respondents are directed to set the petitioners at liberty if their detention is not required in any other case. Petition allowed. .