Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenging an order of detention passed by the first respondent on 9. 2006, this petition to quash the same by way of a writ of habeas corpus has been brought forth. 2. The order under challenge is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition and also the grounds on which the order under challenge is assailed. 3. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that there were four cases registered against him i.e., one ground case and three adverse cases; that out of the four cases, in respect of three adverse cases, he was acquitted; that the remaining case was only foisted against him; that in the instant case, there was no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, since in one case, already bail has been granted, and in the other case, he was produced under P.T. Warrant; that in the instant case, there was no application of mind; that as could be seen, there was an occurrence on 18. 2006, which took place at 10.30 A.M.; that according to the prosecution, it was a public place, and the detenu intimidated and robbed the amount, and under the circumstances, public order was disturbed, and public tranquility was in peril; that at that time, there were no petty shops; that he would not have any occasion at all; that it is nothing but a false averment in order to make it appear as a case; that in the instant case, there was no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail; that the authority, which passed the order has pointed out that there was likelihood of passing any order of bail in his favour; that the same cannot be a reason for making such an order, and under the circumstances, it has got to be set aside. 4. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 5. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to set aside the order. 4. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 5. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to set aside the order. As could be seen from the detention order, on the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that there were actually three adverse cases pending against him, first one under Sections 398 and 506(ii) IPC and Sec.27 of Arms Act, the second one under Sections 341, 448, 398 and 506(ii) IPC and Sec.27 of Arms Act and the third one under Sec.392 read with 397 of I.P.C. the detaining authority has passed the order. A reading of the materials would clearly indicate that all these cases came to be registered by the respective Police Station pursuant to the commission of the alleged crime by the detenu on the respective dates in public places. According to the prosecution, at knife point, he robbed the amounts as found therein. That apart, he has also created a panic and kept the public in a grip of terror, and the public were also moving hither and thither for shelter. Apart from that, the shops were also immediately closed. It is seen that sufficient materials were also placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, and they have been properly perused. Now, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and recorded above, could be raised only before a Court of criminal law where the criminal cases are pending, and at no stretch of imagination, they could be considered at this stage and that too, for setting aside the order of detention. In all the cases, what is noticed by the Court is that public order was in peril, and the public tranquility was also put an end by the act of the accused. Thus, he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Apart from that, there is all possibility of prejudicial activities in future also, which could be indulged by the detenu. The materials placed, in the opinion of this Court, would be sufficient to pass an order of detention, and accordingly, it has been passed. 6. In view of the above reasons, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not merit acceptance. The materials placed, in the opinion of this Court, would be sufficient to pass an order of detention, and accordingly, it has been passed. 6. In view of the above reasons, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not merit acceptance. Hence, this habeas corpus petition fails, and the same is dismissed.