JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. In this Habeas Corpus writ petition filed by Subhash Chandra Kandara, father of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 2.3.2017 (Annex. 2) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur and affirmed by the State Government vide orders dated 8.3.2017 (Annex. 3) and 19.4.2017 (Annex. 4) whereby the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu has been detained for one year w.e.f. 2.3.2017 to 1.3.2018. 2. As per facts of the case vide communication dated 2.3.2017 a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 4 SHO Police Station Nagori Gate, Jodhpur before the respondent no. 3 Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur proposing the proceedings against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 wherein it has been stated that the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is a dangerous person because several criminal cases registered and pending against him, therefore, to check his criminal activities steps may be taken against him. On the basis of the said communication, the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur while exercising powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 passed order on 2.3.2017 so as to detain the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu and send the matter for approval. The State Government vide order dated 8.3.2017 approved the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur dated 2.3.2017 and placed the case before the advisory board for seeking approval. Ultimately, the State Government passed an order dated 19.4.2017 directing to detain the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu for a period of one year. 3. Upon issuing notice to show cause the respondents, a reply has been filed by the respondents in which it is specifically pleaded that due to criminal character and activities of the petitioner's son Kishan Kumar @ Montu a panic the society and there is also law and order situation in the Jodhpur city. It is stated that his criminal activities have been around almost all the area covered by Police Stations Udai Mandir, Mahamandir, Sardarpura, Ratanada, Pratap Nagar, Chopasani Housing Board, Kanda Falsa of Jodhpur metro as well as in the district Jalore. In the reply it is stated that as many as 24 cases under the IPC and under the Arms Act were registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu and after investigation challan was filed. In the reply it is stated that as many as 24 cases under the IPC and under the Arms Act were registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu and after investigation challan was filed. It is also stated that in 9 cases, though the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu was acquitted but he has been acquitted on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties but in remaining 15 cases, the trial is going on before the learned courts. It is submitted that the criminal activities of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu are in continuance and involves attack with deadly weapons, causing injury to the property by subjecting them ablaze, attempt to commit homicidal deaths, committing forgery and fraud and keeping arms and ammunitions. In the reply it was also stated that the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is a history sheeter of Police Station Nagori Gate, Jodhpur and has remained engaged in the criminal activities which have been continuous from the year 2006. Apart from aforesaid from time to time proceedings under Section 110, 1073 and 151 Cr. P.C. were also initiated against him but despite being bound down to maintain good behavior, the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu went on to commit the criminal activities causing eminent danger to the public order. Thus, it was submitted that the orders impugned were rightly passed by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur is based upon 24 cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu out of which in 9 cases, the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu has been acquitted and only 4 cases are pending trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and remaining 8 cases are of Magistrate trial and two cases are under investigation. Thus, it is submitted that no case is registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu which shows that the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is a dangerous person, boot legger, drugs offender, habitual offender or immoral traffic offender. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent no. 4 has field the complaint before the respondent no. 3 on 2.3.2017 for initiating the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, but the respondent no. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent no. 4 has field the complaint before the respondent no. 3 on 2.3.2017 for initiating the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, but the respondent no. 3 without perusing the complaint and record immediately passed the order of detention against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu on 2.3.2017 itself while relying upon the complaint of the respondent no. 4. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 12 of the Act of 2006 it is provided that the advisory board shall after considering the material placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the State Government or from any person called for the purpose through the State Government or from the detenue and if, in any particular case, the advisory board considers it essential so to do or if the detenue desires to be heard, after hearing the detenue in person, submit its report to the State Government within fifty days from the date of detention of detenue, but the advisory board has passed the order dated 19.4.2017 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, thereby there is complete violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the detention order dated 2.3.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 is without application of mind because the same is solely based on the basis of complaint submitted by the respondent no. 4 and no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu for making his representation whatsoever. Even the respondent no. 3 before passing the detention order has not taken may approval fro the State Government and the approval has been obtained subsequently vide order dated 8.3.2017, which amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Even the respondent no. 3 before passing the detention order has not taken may approval fro the State Government and the approval has been obtained subsequently vide order dated 8.3.2017, which amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in DB Habeas Corpus Writ petition No. 261/2014: Rupnarayan @ Ruppa Meena through Smt. Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been held that the authorities are required to apply his mind before passing the order of detention and no such order of detention may be passed in mechanical manner. In view of the above, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders impugned in the writ petition may kindly be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General argued that though in 9 cases, the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is acquitted from the charges levelled against him but he has been acquitted on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties and therefore, it cannot be said that he was honourably acquitted. Further it is argued that the antecedents of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu were considered in its entirety and after applying due application of mind, the order of detention was passed. It is also submitted that the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention is clearly reflected from the grounds of detention. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the express “maintenance of public order” has wide connotation which includes that activities of an offender has created panic and insecurity in the minds of general public and in so far as the activities of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is concerned, his activities have caused eminent danger to the public order and therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed by the respondents. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Dinu Khan v. State of Rajasthan (DB Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7824/2014), decided on 20.3.2015, Bebu Singh v. State of Rajasthan (DB Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 4021/2015), decided on 19.5.2015, Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan (DB Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 5525/2015), decided on 13.7.2015 and Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (DB Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 18/2015), decided on 3.12.2015. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that although there are as many as 24 cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu under the provisions of the IPC and under the Arms Act but the proceedings were also undertaken against him under Section 107 and 110 Cr. P.C. It is also submitted that order of detention was passed on 2.3.2017 and the advisory board considered the cases of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu in its meeting dated 31.3.2017 and thus the consideration by the advisory board is within the statutory period as prescribed by Section 12 of the Act of 2006. Thereafter, the order of detention was confirmed on 21.3.2017 by the advisory board and upon the report of the advisory board the order was passed on 19.4.2017. Further, it is argued that the since the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu remained present before the advisory board on 31.3.2017 and since he have submitted his representation and after considering his representation, the order impugned came to be passed, therefore, there is no question to say that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no force in this habeas corpus petition and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined the entire record and pleadings of the writ petition so also, considered the stand taken by the parties. 10. In this case, the action has been taken against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu under the Act of 2006 which is promulgated to provide preventive detention of boot-leggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immortal traffic offenders and property grabbers for preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Dy. 10. In this case, the action has been taken against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu under the Act of 2006 which is promulgated to provide preventive detention of boot-leggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immortal traffic offenders and property grabbers for preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Dy. Commissioner (East) Jodhpur Commissionerate submitted a communication alongwith the details of the criminal cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu before the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur for taking action against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 and after considering details of cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, the order was passed on 2.3.2017 by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur whereby the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu was detained and sent to the Central Jail, Jodhpur. 11. The copy of the said order was served upon the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu and information was given to the petitioner father Subhash Chandra Kandara as required under the Act of 2006. The Police Commissioner, Jodhpur forwarded the case to the State Government for approval and in turn the order was confirmed by the Governmen vide order dated 8.3.2017 and that order was also served to the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu. In the reply it is stated that after approval the case of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu was placed before the advisory board on 30.3.2017 and an opportunity was granted to the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu to appear before the advisory board for making submissions against the order of detention. 12. The advisory board after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Police Commissioner, Johdpur as well as the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu passed confirmed the order of detention. We have examined the details of the cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu in the different police stations. 12. The advisory board after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Police Commissioner, Johdpur as well as the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu passed confirmed the order of detention. We have examined the details of the cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu in the different police stations. The details of those case are as follows: fd'ku dqekj mQZ eksUVq iq= Jh lqHkk"kpUnz] tkfr okfYedh] mez 30 lky] fuoklh fryd uxj] mn;eafnj gfjtu cLrh] iqfyl Fkkuk ukxkSjhxsV] tks/kiqj egkuxj ds fo:} ntZ vkijkf/kd izdj.kA ifjf'k"V ^^v** dzŒ la[;k izŒ la[;k rkjh[k dk;eh /kkjk Fkkuk ¼tgka vfHk;ksx ntZ gqvk gks½ pktZ 'khV uEcj o fnukad tsŒ,QŒ uEcj U;k;ky; dk uke urhtk dksVZ dksVZ dsl dh fLFkfr o vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh ist uaŒ 1- 402 05-09-04 451] 323] 324 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 247@20-09-04 327@04 ,lhts,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj fnukad 15-03-2007 jkth ukek nks"keqDr 1 ls 11 2- 720 22-12-05 341] 323 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn;eafnj 382@31-12-05 22@06 ,e,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj i=koyh u"V ¼chM½ fnukad 15-02-07 12 ls 18 rd 3- 153 19-10-06 307] 147] 149 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ [kk.Mk Qylk 114@21-12-06 02@07 ,Mhts QkLV Vsªd uaŒ 1 tks/kiqj fnukad 31-05-07 lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr 19 ls 38 rd 4- 451 23-09-07 341] 327] 324] 323] 307] 147] 148] 149] 397 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 329@29-10-07 845@07 ,lhts,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj fnukad 23-04-16 tfj;s jkthukek nks"keqDr 39 ls 62 rd 5- 05 06-01-09 323] 379] 147 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn;eafnj 11@08-02-09 449@09 268@13 ihlhih,u MhVh dksVZ tks/kiqj fnukad 27-07-16 nks"keqDr 63 ls 87 rd 6- 353 24-09-09 341] 323] 427] 509] 147] 148] 149 HkkŒnaŒla egkeafnj 356@12-11-09 632@09 ,lhts,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj fnukad 06-11-15 nks"keqDr 88 ls 114 rd 7- 402 27-10-09 307] 143] 509] 323] 427] 324] 326 HkknaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 463@25-12-09 45@10 ,Mhts QkLV Vsªd uaŒ 1 tks/kiqj fnukad 15-04-10 tfj;s jkthukek nks"keqDr 115 ls 137 rd 8- 186 09-07-12 4@25 vkElZ ,DV lh,pch 163@25-07-12 203@12 ,e,e uaŒ 8 tks/kiqj fnukad 28-04-14 dks lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks"keqDr 138 ls 151 rd 9- 361 01-11-12 341] 323] 325@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 406@28-12-12 204@13 ,lhts,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj fnukad 25-07-16 jkthukek nks"keqDr 152 ls 178 rd 10- 103 08-03-13 341] 323] 427@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn;eafnj 133@29-05-13 57@17 ,e,e uaŒ 1 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 28-03-17 179 ls 205 rd 11- 144 27-03-13 341] 323] 324] 307 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 167@03-06-13 25@13 ,Mhts uaŒ 2 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 03-03-17 206 ls 228 rd 12- 86 26-04-14 341] 323] 329 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ljnkjiqjk 320@28-12-14 30@15 ,Mhts uaŒ 2 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 06-03-17 229 ls 249 rd 13- 334 28-07-14 323] 341@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn;eafnj 312@28-08-14 570@14 ,e,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 29-05-17 250 ls 270 rd 14- 267 15-05-15 323] 147] 148] 149] 427] 307] 325] 324 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ izrkiuxj 537@17-11-15 54@16 03@16 ,Mhts uaŒ tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 04-04-17 271 ls 295 rd 15- 269 27-06-15 435 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ jkrkukMk 75@08-05-16 284@16 lh,e,e tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 19-05-17 296 ls 310 rd 16- 337 11-07-15 143] 341] 323] 427] 147] 148] 149 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ egkeafnj 411@30-09-15 351@16 ,lhts,e uaŒ 3 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 11-04-17 311 ls 327 rd 17- 379 13-07-15 147] 148] 149] 307] 323] 324] 341] 420] 467] 468] 471] 474] 482] 483] 485 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 3@25] 4@25 vkElZ ,DV izrkiuxj 526@30-10-15 52@16 ,lhts,e uaŒ 2 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 04-03-17 328 ls 354 rd 18- 580 18-12-15 4@25 vkElZ ,DV egkeafnj 614@22-12-15 311@16 vkfFkZd vijk/k dksVZ tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 30-03-07 355 ls 366 rd 19- 17 10-01-16 341] 323] 427 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ izrkiuxj 44@29-02-16 58@16 ,lhts,e uaŒ 2 tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 23-06-17 367 ls 379 rd 20- 18 12-01-16 147] 148] 149] 458] 379] 427] 307] 440 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 3¼2½¼v½ o 3¼2½¼v½,llh@,lVh ,DV izrkiuxj 129@16-05-16 175@16 62@16 ,lhts,e uaŒ 2 tks/kiqj ,llh@,lVh dksVZ tks/kiqj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 11-04-17 380 ls 398 rd 21- 30 12-01-16 147] 427] 387] 149 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn;eafnj 323@23-08-16 306@17 ,e,e uaŒ 1 tks/kiqj egkuxj iSf.Mx Vªk;y 21-04-17 399 ls 417 rd 22- 93 08-08-16 143] 341] 323] 427] 395 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ uksljk ftyk tkykSj --- --- --- tSj rrh'k --- 418 ls 436 rd 23- 20 08-02-17 /kkjk 143] 323] 308] 341 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj cktkj --- --- --- tSj rrh'k --- 437 ls 439 rd vfHk;qDr fd'ku dqekj mQZ eksUVq ds fo:} dh xbZ fujks/kkRed dk;Zokgh ifjf'k"V ^^c** dzŒ la[;k balnknh dk;Zokgh is'k djus dh fnukad ljdkj cuke@dksVZ dk uke tsŒ,QŒ uaŒ urhtk U;k;ky; ist uaŒ 1- 110 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ iqfyl Fkkuk ukxkSjh xsV tks/kiqj iwoZ 23-09-2000 fd'ku dqekj mQZ eksUVq@lgk;d iqfyl vk;qDr eq[;ky; ,oa dk;Zikyd eftLVsªV iqfyl dfe'uj tks/kiqj 3060@16 vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh fnukad 06-03-2017 440&445 Upon perusal of the aforesaid details of the case, there is no doubt that 23 cases were registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu in different Police Stations of Jodhpur Division and Jodhpur City itself and out of 23 cases he was acquitted in 9 cases registered against him, but from 8.3.2013 to 8.2.2017 in the period of 4 years cases were registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu in which trail is pending. There is no doubt that in all the cases, the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu has been released on bail by the learned trial court but nature of the offences committed by him loudly speaks that detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is habitual to commit offence. 14. The SHO, Police Station, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur filed a complaint under Section 110 Cr. P.C. against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu on 23.9.2016, but after filing the said complaint, another case was registered against him at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur under Section 143, 323, 308 and 341 IPC in which as per submissions made by the learned counsel for the State the challan has been filed against him. Another case was registered at Police Station Nauseara, District Jalore in which detenue was absconded and arrested after passing the detention order and challan was filed against him under Section 395 IPC. We have perused the definition of “dangerous person” as enumerated in Section 2(c) of the Act of 2006, which reads as under: “(c) ‘dangerous person’ means a person, who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or a attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No. 45 of 1860) or any of the offences publishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act No. 54 of 1959) or any of the offences punishable under first proviso to sub-sec. (1), and sub-sec. (1-A) of Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act No. 53 of 1972) or any offence punishable under sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 21 of 2000). 15. We have also perused the order of advisory board and list of cases registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu. It is true that merely on the basis of registration of number of cases a person cannot be termed as “dangerous person” but at the same time, it is the duty of the respondents to assess the fact of each of the cases and to reach to the firm opinion whether criminal activities of the offender cerate law and order situation nor not. If it is found that number of cases are registered against the person and it is not possible to check the activities as per law then of course power can be exercised by the respondents under the special law enacted by the Legislature. In this case, it is true that in none of the case, detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu has been convicted by the learned trial court, but upon perusal of the details of the cases registered against him for various offences, there is no doubt that cases were registered against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu at all the Police Stations of Commisionerate Jodhpur which is Mahamandir, Udai Mandir, Sardarpura, Pratapnagar and, thereafter, one case was registered at Jalore under Section 323, 427 and 395 IPC in which chargesheet has been filed. It is also one of the fact that after registration of the case at Jalore, he was absconding and during the pendency of the investigation, again committed an offence under Section 143, 323, 308 and 341 IPC and that case was registered at Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur. 16. We have considered the very important fact that complaint u/Sec. 110 Cr. P.C. was filed against the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu by the SHO Police Station, Nagaori Gate, Johdpur which is said to be pending till today. 17. Upon consideration of the entire facts of the case, coupled with the definition of “dangerous person” we are of the opinion that some check was required upon the activities of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu for keeping peace in the city. There is no doubt that detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is facing trail in more than 14 cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail but he has misused the bail because after releasing him on bail number of cases were reported against him for serious offences. It is true that mere registration of number of cases cannot be treated a ground to pass an order of detention, it is the duty of the competent authority to assess the criminal activities of the detenue on the basis of the facts stated in the cases registered against him. In the present case, it is obvious that all provisions of Cr. In the present case, it is obvious that all provisions of Cr. P.C. were taken into consideration to check the criminal activities of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu, but it is very strange that all the efforts failed, therefore, it was felt necessary by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to pass an order for detention while exercising powers under Sec. 3 of the Act of 2006. 18. We have also considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, looking the present fact situation, it is amply clear that the respondents while passing the detention order has considered each and every aspect of the matter because the criminal activities of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu has created hawk in the society. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner having distinguishable facts are not applicable on the fact of the present case. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the respondents while exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 so as to detain the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu for one year due to his criminal activities reported against him. 20. Consequently, the instant habeas corpus petition as filed by the petitioner father of the detenue Kishan Kumar @ Montu is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.