K. K. MISRA, J. In both these writ petitions the common impugned detention order dated 30-7-2005 passed by District Magistrate, Rampur, respondent No. 2, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is under challenge. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It is stated therein that on 22-4-2005 at 10. 15 a. m. a report was lodged by the complainant Sunil son of late Ram Saran that when he alongwith his wife and his nieces, namely, Ms. Poonam and Ms. Sundari entered his house on return from temple, the petitioner with his associates entered his house armed with firearms and they took with them his niece, namely, Ms. Poonam. They stripped Ms. Poonam naked, tearing her clothes. On raising shouts by complainant Sunil and his family members, many neighbours assembled. The petitioners and their associates threw Miss Poonam naked outside the house. Then the petitioner and his associates ran away, firing. An F. I. R. was registered as case crime No. 145/05 under Section 452/354/509/ 323/506 I. P. C. The incident had taken place in broad day light. There was hue and cry and atmosphere was exceedingly charged which resulted in breach of public order. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard Shri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A. G. A. Nobody has turned up for the Union of India in petition No. 66528/05. But Shri A. K. Singh argued for Union of India in petition No. 66525/05. 5. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the incident relied upon for passing the impugned detention order related only to the problem of law and order and it had nothing to do with the maintenance of public order. 6. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A. G. a. strongly contended that due to the incident, there was hue and cry in the locality and the force was deployed in the locality for maintenance of public order. In short, the submission of the learned A. G. A. is that the incident in question gave rise to breach of public order and not of law and order. 7. In short, the submission of the learned A. G. A. is that the incident in question gave rise to breach of public order and not of law and order. 7. Any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence is bound to some extent affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order but the same need not always affect maintenance of public order. The question whether a person has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. The present incident was definitely one which adversely affected public order. 8. In the above circumstances, we find that the incident on the basis of which the present detention order was passed related to question of public order. Consequently, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur does not suffer from any illegality. 9. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. .