JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed on behalf of corpus Chandan Vishwakarma who is said to be illegally detained by the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus of petitioner before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from illegal detention. II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the detention orders dated 15.8.2018 and 9.10.2018 passed by the respondents. III. issue any other suitable writ petition, order or direction, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. award the cost to the petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. We have heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 4. The order under challenge is the detention order dated 15.08.2018 passed by the State-respondent, which was subsequently approved on 21.08.2018. The said detention order was thereafter extended vide order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure-2) to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State (District Magistrate). This extension was made for a further period of three months. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that basis of the said detention order appears to be three incidents with regard to which three different FIRs were lodged with three different Case Crime numbers. The first being Case Crime no. 224 of 2018, the second being Case Crime no. 225 of 2018 and the third being Case Crime no. 226 of 2018. All the three FIRs have been lodged on the same day, i.e. 31.7.2018. The first F.I.R. was lodged at about 4:25 in the evening, the second F.I.R. was lodged at about 9:08 in the night and the third F.I.R. was lodged at about 00:32 hours at midnight. 6. 226 of 2018. All the three FIRs have been lodged on the same day, i.e. 31.7.2018. The first F.I.R. was lodged at about 4:25 in the evening, the second F.I.R. was lodged at about 9:08 in the night and the third F.I.R. was lodged at about 00:32 hours at midnight. 6. The Court has been informed that subsequent to the passing of the detention order dated 15.8.2018, the petitioner has been granted bail in all the aforesaid three cases but it has not been disputed that the date on which the detention order was passed by the appropriate authority that is 15.8.2018, the petitioner was in jail and the satisfaction of the detaining authority as recorded in this regard is absolutely false. 7. At this stage, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of detention (ground to detention), the illegality in the satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 7. At this stage, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of detention (ground to detention), the illegality in the satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order. ^^vki o vkids lkFkh lquhy flag dk {ks= esa vkrad c<+ x;k gSA O;kikfj;ksa o fofHkUu dkjksckfj;ks ls tekur djkus ds fy, /ku mxkgh dj jgs gSA bu yksxks }kjk tsy esa jgrs gq, Hkh vU; ek/;eksa ls ;g dgrs gq, ng'kr QSyk;k tk jgk gS fd ftl fnu NqVdj vk;sxs rqe yksxks dh [kSj ugh gS ;fn fdlh us f[kykQ esa xokgh nh rks tku ls ekj nsaxsA vki U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa ftyk dkjkxkj esa fnukad 01-08-18 ls fu:) gSA vkidh tekur izkFkZuk i= ek0 lh0 ts0 ,e0 U;k0 xksj[kiqj ls fnukad 03-08-2018 dks fujLr gksdj ek0 l= U;k0 xksj[kiqj esa fopkjk/khu gSA tgka ls vki tekur izkIr djus dh rS;kjh esa gSA mijksDr eqdnesa esa tekur izkIr djus gsrq vkids lg;ksfx;ks }kjk nqdkunkjks o O;olkf;;ks dks /kedk dj /ku bdV~Bk djk;k tk jgk gSA fudV Hkfo"; esa vkids tekur ij NwV tkus dh izcy laHkkouk gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd vki ,d [krjukd] nqLlkgfld ,oa 'kkfrj vijk/kh gSA vki dh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka fujarj cuh gqbZ gSA ftlls yksd O;oLFkk dk vuqj{k.k dqizHkkfor gks jgk gSA vkids vkijkf/kd d`R;ks ls tuekul] O;kikjh] Nk= nqdkunkj esa Hk; ,oa vkrad O;kIr gSA tsy esa jgrs gq, Hkh vki }kjk vius lg;ksfx;ks ds ek/;e ls Hkh nqdkunkjks] O;kikfj;ksa ls viuh tekur djkus ds uke ij yxkrkj xq.Mk VSDl dh ek¡x dh tk jgh gSA vkSj vius fo:) eqdnesa esa xokgh u nsus ds fy, /kedk;k tk jgk gSA vkids ng'kr ,oa vkrad ls dksbZ O;fDr lkeus vkdj eqdnek fy[kokus o vkids fo:) xokgh nsus dk lkgl ugh dj ik jgk gSA mijksDr rF;ks ls izekf.kr gS fd vki LoHkkor% nqLlkgfld ,oa [krjukd vijk/kh gSA vkids Åij dbZ xEHkhj vijk/k ntZ gS] o`gn~ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl gSA vkidh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka fujUrj cuh gqbZ gSA ftlls yksd O;oLFkk dk vuqj{k.k dqizHkkfor gks jgk gSA vkids vkijkf/kd d`R;ks ls Fkkuk jkt?kkV o mlds vkl&ikl ds yksxks esa ng'kr] Hk; o la=kl mRiUu gks x;k gSA vkidh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ks ij fu;a=.k] fof/k dk 'kklu LFkkfir djus rFkk yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k gsrq vkidks fu:) djuk furkUr vko';d gSA ;fn vkidks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fu:) ugh fd;k x;k rks vki vius vkijkf/kd d`R;ks dks tkjh j[krs gq;s vke turk] O;kikfj;ks] nqdkunkjks] Nk=k] vfHkokodks dks vkrafdr dj yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k esa O;o/kku mRiUu djsxsa ftlls tuthou dk lkekU; izokg fNUu&fHkUu gks tk;sxk] vr,ao yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k ds fy, vko';d gS fd vkidks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 ds rgr fu:) fd;k tk;A** 8. The primary and basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the satisfaction as recorded by the detaining authority while passing the detention order is not in accordance with the legal parameter as laid down by the Apex Court and which forms the basis for recording the satisfaction. There is nothing on record in the detention order which may show that the petitioner is likely to be granted bail or thereafter on being released on bail, he will indulge in activity as has been indulged by them in the present case. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to all the three FIRs which have been annexed to the writ petition to demonstrate and to bring on record the nature of detention as contained in the FIRs. ^^(a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½% 1. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to all the three FIRs which have been annexed to the writ petition to demonstrate and to bring on record the nature of detention as contained in the FIRs. ^^(a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½% 1. Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018 Date To ¼fnukad rd½% 31/07/2018 Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 4 Time from ¼le; ls½% 11%30 cts Time To ¼le; rd½% 11%30 cts (b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½% Date ¼fnukad½% 31/07/2018 Time ¼le;½% 16%25 cts (c) General Diary Reference ¼jkstukepk lanHkZ½% Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 030 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 31/07/2018 Entry No. 16%25 cts lsok esa izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk jkt?kkV xksj[kiqj egksn;] lfou; fuosnu gS fd eSa izkFkhZ foosd dqekj xqIrk iq= Jh v'kksd dqekj xqIrk eq0& fetkZiqj Fkkuk & jkt?kkV ftyk& xksj[kiqj dk fuoklh gwa izkFkhZ fgUnw ;qok okfguh dk eaMy egkea=h gSA laxBu ,oa Hkktik ds izfr ges'kk izpkj izlkj gsrq iksLV Mkyk djrk gSa dy fnukad 30-07-2018 dks gekjs eks0u0 ij 8808711222 ij eks0 ua0 8052444444 ls Qksu vk;k Fkk Qksu djus okys us viuk ifjp; lquhy flag jk"Vh; v/;{k fgUnw ;qok okfguh Hkkjr crk;k rFkk eq>s laxBu NksMus ds fy, etcwj fd;k vkSj dy ?kj vkus dh ckr dgh vkSj dgk fd jkeHkqvky dq'kokgk ,oa bZ0ih0ds eYy dks Hkh cqyk ysuk mlds 5 feuV ckn eks0u0 6387173105 ls Qksu vk;k ftlus viuk ifjp; panu fo'odekZ crk;k mUgksus eq>s Qksu dj eka & cgu dh xkyh nsrs gq, eq>s Lo;a rFkk esjs ifjokj dks tku eky dh /kedh nsrs gq, yydkjus yxk fd ckgj fudysk lcdks ns[k ysaxsaA vkt iqu% yxHkx 11-30 cts mDr panu fo'odekZ iq= jktw fo'odekZ vius HkkbZ lkSjHk fo'odekZ iq= jktw fo'odekZ eks0& fetkZiqj Fkkuk jkt?kkV vius 4&5 yksxksa ds lkFk esjs ?kj ij p< vk;s eka& cgu dh xkyh nsrs gq, eq>s nkSMk fy, eSa ?kj esa Hkkxk oks yksx Hkh ?kj esa xkyh nsrs gq, tku ekjus ds fu;r ls ?kqls eSa nwljh eafty ij tkdj viuh tku cpkbZ yksxksa ds vkus ij HkhM c<rh ns[k dj ;s yksx Hkkx x;sA IkzkFkZuk i= ns jgk gw mfpr dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djs rFkk ;s yksx ncax O;fDr gSA esjh lqj{kk O;oLFkk djus dh d`ik djsA izkFkhZ foosd dqekj xqIrk ¼lw;kZ½ iq= Jh v'kksd dqekj xqIrk fnukad 31-07-2018A Second F.I.R. (a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½% 1. Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018 Date To ¼fnukad rd½% 31/07/2018 Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 6 Time from ¼le; ls½% 17%30 cts (b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½% Date ¼fnukad½% 31/07/2018 Time ¼le;½% 21%08 cts (c) General Diary Reference ¼jkstukepk lanHkZ½% Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 039 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 31/07/2018 21%08 cts lsok esa iz/kku ys[kd Fkkuk jkt?kkV tuin xksj[kiqj vkt fnukad 31-07-18 dks eSa ,l0,p0vks0 jkefoykl ;kno e; gejkg dk0 ;ksxs'oj ikaMs; dk0 jkds'k izlkn ,p0th0 jked`iky e; thi ljdkjh ;w0ih0 53 ,0th0 0872 pkyd v'kksd dqejk flag ds ns[kHkky {ks= o 'kkafr O;oLFkk {ks= esa ekewj Fkk tfj;s nwjHkk"k lwpuk feyh dh Fkkuk LFkkuh; ij iathd`r eq0v0l0 224@18 /kkjk 147,149,452,352,504,506,507 vkbZihlh fo:) fo'odekZ vkfn 3 uQj o 4&5 O;fDr uke irk vKkr ds fojks/k esa fgUnw okfguh Hkkjr ds v/;{k lquhy flag ds usr`Ro esa lkSjHk fo'odekZ] Hkwisanz flag] vfHkuanu frokjh] Jh jke ckcw] deys'k panj fo'odekZ] lquhy dqekj] jk/kosanz izrki flag] dqynhi flag vkfn 35&40 uQj O;fDr;ksa lkFk ukjsckth djrs gq, xkyh xqIrk nsrs gq, tkueky dh /kedh nsrs gq, Fkkus esa ?kqlus dk iz;kl dj jgs gS] bl lwpuk dks esjs }kjk tfj;s nwjHkk"k mPpf/kdkjhx.k dks voxr djkrs gq, Fkkus ij igqpk rks ns[kk fd mijksDr yksxks dh HkhM dks larjh igjh Fkkuk xsV ij jksd jgk gS vkSj mijksDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk larjh dks /kDdk nsdj Fkkus esa izos'k dj x;s ftlds dkj.k Fkkuk o vkl ikl vQjk rQjh dk ekgksy iSnk gks x;kA vkSj dk;Z ljdkj ckf/kr gks x;k] esjs }kjk HkhM dks dkQh le>k;k cq>k;k x;k vkSj le>kus cq>kus ij mDr HkhM vkSj mRrsftr gks x;h vkSj /kDdk eqDdh djus yxh esjs }kjk crk;k x;k fd vki dh HkhM fof/k fo:) gS vki yksxks ds bl d`R; ls Fkkus ds lkeus dh lMd ij vkokxeu ckf/kr gS vkSj vQjk rQjh dk ekgkSy gks x;k gS bl ij mDr HkhzM gkFkkikgh ij mrk: gks x;k 'kkafr O;oLFkk fNUu fHkUu gks x;h gSA rc rd mPpkf/kdkjh ds funsZ'k ij izHkkjh fujh{kd frokjhiqj Jh izeksn dqekj f=ikBh Fkkuk izHkkjh xksj[kukFk Jh vf[kys'k dqekj flag Fkkuk izHkkjh dksrokyh Jh ?ku';ke frokjh vius & 2 gejkg QkslZ ds lkFk Fkkus ij vk x;sA T;ksafg ikap N C;fDr;ksa ekSds ls vko';d U;wure cy iz;ksx dj fxjQrkj fd;k x;k rks 'ks"k yksx ekSds ds utkdr dks Hkkxrs gq, gV c< x;sA fxjQrkj O;fDr;ksa dk uke irk iwNk x;k rks ,d us viuk uke lquhy flag iq= Lo0 j?kqukFk flag fuoklh dqMk?kkV ih0,l0 dSaV tuin xksj[kiqj a¼2½ Hkwisanz flag iq= /kqzo izrki flag fuoklh vkokl fodkl dkyksuh dqMk?kkV ih0,l0 dSaV xksj[kiqj ¼3½ vfHkuanu frokjh iq= HkwiukFk frokjh fuoklh cjkSyh ih0,l0 egqyh tuin lardchj uxj ¼4½ Jh jkeckcw iq= f'kodqekj fuoklh fetkZiqj ih0,l0 jkt?kkV tuin xksj[kiqj ¼5½ deys'k iq= Lo0 gfjvkse fuoklh fetkZiqj ih0,l0 jkt?kkV tuin xksj[kiqj ¼6½ panu fo'odekZ iq= jktw fo'odekZ fuoklh fetkZiqj ih0,l0 jkt?kkV tuin xksj[kiqj crk;s rFkk crk;s fd vthr vxzgfj iq= euw vxzgfj fuoklh fetkZiqj ?kklhdVjk jksM ih0,l0 jkt?kkV tuin xksj[kiqj ¼2½ eD[ku JhokLro uke irk vKkr ¼3½ lquhy dqekj iq= lR;ujk;u fuoklh vkokl fodkl dkyksuh ih0,l0 'kkgiqj tuin xksj[kiqj ¼4½ jk?kosanz flag iq= ujsanz flag vkokl fodkl dkyksuh e0u0 326 dqMk?kkV ih0,l0 dSaV xksj[kiqj ¼5½ dqynhi iq= gfjvkse d';i fuoklh QyeaMh ih0,l0 [kksjkokj xksj[kiqj o 35&40 O;fDr ekSds ls Hkkx x;sA Third F.I.R. (a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½% 1. Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018 Date To ¼fnukad rd½% 31/07/2018 Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 1 Time from ¼le; ls½% 00%00 ct Time To ¼le; rd½% 00%00 cts (b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½% Date ¼fnukad½% 01/08/2018 Time ¼le;½% 00%32 cts (c) General Diary Reference ¼jkstukepk lanHkZ½% Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 002 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 01-08-2018 00%32 cts lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; jkt?kkV xksj[kiqj egksn; fuosnu gS fd ge izkFkhZ jkeHkqoky dq'kokgk iq= Jh 'kadj yky dq'kokgk fuoklh VkaliksVZ uxj Fkkuk jkt?kkV ftyk xksj[kiqj dk fuoklh gwA vkt fnukad 31-07-18 fnu esa ';ke dky vius uhth dk;Z gsrq LdkfiZ;ks xkMh ua0 ;w0ih0 53 ch0ds0 1701 ls lkgcxat ls fetkZiqj ls tk jgk Fkk fd lquhy flag] panu fo'odekZ iq= jktw fo'odekZ deys'k d';i o jke ckcw xqIrk ds vkijkf/kd lkftl ij lkSjHk fo'odekZ iq= jktw fo'odekZ fuoklh fetkZiqj Fkkuk jkt?kkV ftyk xksj[kiqj esa vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk yksgs dh jkM] ykBh] bZV iRFkj o vU; ?kkrd gfFk;kj ls ySl gksdj ?ksj fy, lkSjHk fo'odekZ ds yydkjus ij izkFkhZ dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls nhiw dlkS/ku iq= vKkr] 'kqHke iq= izeksn xqIrk fuolh fetkZiqj xqMeaMh vthr vxzgfj iq= eUuw yky fuoklh fetkZiqj ?kklh dVjk eksfgr xqIrk vKkr vkdk'k iq= vKkr fuoklh fetkZiqj Fkkuk jkt?kkV xksj[kiqj] eD[ku JhokLro iq= vKkr] lquhy dwqekj iq= lR;ukjk;.k fuoklh vkokl fodkl dkyksuh Fkkuk 'kkgiqj tuin xksj[kiqj] jk?kosanz izrki flag iq= ujsanj flag fuoklh vkokl fodkl dkyksuh dqMk ?kkV Fkkuk dSaV tuin xksj[kiqj] dqynhi iq= gfjvkse d';i fuoklh QyeaMh Fkkuk [kksjkokj tuin xksj[kiqj lfgr 15&20 yksx yksgs ds jkM] ykBh] bZaV] iRFkj pykus yxs ftlls izkFkhZ ,oa izkFkhZ ds lkFk xkMh esa cSBs izHkk'kadj f=ikBh] v'kksd xqIrk o foosd lw;kZ o jke flag duksft;k lHkh yksxksa dks dkQh pksVsa vk;h gS rFkk ge izkFkhZ ds xkMh dk 'kh'kk VwV x;k o xkMh {kfrxzLr gks x;hA lftlu gq, bl geys ls ge lHkh lge x;s rFkk tku cpkdj HkkxsA mijksDr yksx vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds O;fDr gS tks vk;s fnu rjg rjg dh vijkf/kd ?kVuk,a djrs jgrs gSA ?kVuk ds ckn ?kVuk ds ckkcr Jh eku dks lwpuk ns jgk gwA vr% vki Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k dk eqdnek ntZ dj eqyftekuksa ds f[kykQ mfpr dk;Zokgh dj nafMr djus dh d`ik djsaA fnukad 31-07-18 izkFkhZ g0 jkeHkqvky dq'kokgk] jkeHkqoky dq'kokgk iq= Jh 'kadj yky dq'kokgk eq0 V~kaliksVZ uxj Fkkuk jkt? kkV] xksj[kiqj eks0 u0 9450231616 ys[kd ia0 g`n; ukjk;.k ,MoksdsV 31-07-18** 9. The counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the contention that all the three FIRs have been lodged on the same date on account of previous enmity. He further submits that he was arrested on 31.7.2018 at about 5:30 in the evening and thus the second F.I.R. has been lodged subsequently after his arrest and thus it has been contended that both the FIRs have been lodged only for the purpose of building the case against him. The basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even if the prosecution case is believed to be true as stated in all the FIRs, in all three cases he has been granted bail and that even otherwise satisfaction has not been recorded and basically it is a law and order situation and does not give rise to any dispute of public order which might have induced the detaining authority to resort to the National Security Act against the petitioner. Only ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order is that the present case is one of law and order and not public order and the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act is per se illegal. 10. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that as per the situation which could be easily handled by the criminal system of the country and the invocation of N.S.A. was not required. The detaining authority has not recorded his satisfaction as to how and under what circumstances it be said the criminal system of the country is not capable to deal with the situation and it has been thus contended that the order of detention which has been passed under the present situation is punitive in nature and not preventive in nature. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is not on the record that after the incident dated 31.7.2018 some public demonstration has taken place and there was no occasion to pass the detention order dated 18.8.2018 when the incident itself was of 31.7.2018 and the petitioner was in jail with no scope of his release on bail on that particular date. 12. 12. Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of Union of India bringing on record the manner in which the representation of the petitioner has been dealt with. 13. However, keeping in view the basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the same need not to be gone into. 14. Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition with the contention that the conduct of the petitioner has given rise to public order situation and petitioner has criminal history of various cases. 15. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that three of the cases are the present case and after his being detained in jail he has been further implicated in four other criminal cases and this constitutes the criminal history of the petitioner. 16. It has been very vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order has not recorded its satisfaction as required to have been recorded under the provisions of Section 3(2) of National Security Act. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rekha vs State Of Tamilnadu through Secretary to Government, reported in AIR 2011 (5) SCC 244 , wherein the Apex Court has held that "if recourse to criminal proceedings would be sufficient to deal with alleged prejudicial activities, then the detention order would be illegal, even if a person is liable to be tried, or is actually being so tried, for a criminal offence, but the ordinary criminal law (IPC or the penal statutes) will not able to deal with this situation, then and only then, the preventive detention law be taken recourse to." 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon two Division Bench Judgements of this Court rendered in the case of Sudhir Vs. Union of India & 3 others passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2018 and Istekaar & Another Vs. Union of India & 5 others passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3094 of 2018. 18. Much has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the present is a case of only simple "law and order" and will not fall within the category of "public order". Union of India & 5 others passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3094 of 2018. 18. Much has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the present is a case of only simple "law and order" and will not fall within the category of "public order". The questions of "law and order" and "public order" have been engaging the attention of the Court since time immemorial. A perusal of relevant case law in this regard would show that "public order" indicates something more than "law and order". The breach of public order involves a degree of disturbance and it affects upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order and not a public order. The difference between two concepts is in only one degree. An act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order and an act which might be prejudicial to public order may not affect the security of the State. Public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquility and it is the absence of any disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradiction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State. 19. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar and others, 1966 AIR 740, it has been held by the Apex Court that any contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. It was observed that offences against "law and order", "public order" and "security of the State" are demarcated on the basis of the gravity. It was observed that offences against "law and order", "public order" and "security of the State" are demarcated on the basis of the gravity. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public, the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community, but in fact it was a solitary case of robbery, it was held that mere citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 20. The determining test in all such cases is "the act leads to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of society undisturbed." The expression "law and order", "public order" and "security of the State" are distinct concepts though always not separate. Every public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder but every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. For example, when two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar and others, AIR 1966 SC 740 ). 21. In Mrs. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar and others, AIR 1966 SC 740 ). 21. In Mrs. T. Devaki vs Government Of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1086 , the Apex Court has held that single incident of murderous assault on the Minister in a public place was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Any disorderly behavior 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 problem but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. The incident did not and could not affect public peace and tranquility nor it had potential to create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. The solitary incident as alleged in the ground of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this is a solitary case and thus, there was no occasion for the detaining authority to have passed the preventive detention order. 23. It has been contended that in the present case it has not been shown that the detaining authority that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the aforesaid fact as to how and under what circumstances can it be presumed that the criminal law machinery of the State by itself is not sufficient to deal with the situation at hand. 24. 24. Reference may also be made to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramveer Jatav vs State Of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 63 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that it is difficult to infer from the solitary ground set out in the grounds of detention that the act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner would have disturbed public order as distinct from law and order or that one single act committed by the petitioner was of such a character that it could reasonably be inferred by the detaining authority that if not detained, he would be likely to indulge in such activity in future. 25. In the aforesaid case, an incident had taken place in broad day light incident in which some persons had indulged in an act of firing and killing the deceased near the clinic. 26. Reliance has also been placed on another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Subhash Bhandari vs District Magistrate Lucknow, reported in AIR 1987 (4) SCC 685 . 27. We have perused the said criminal history which has been explained by learned counsel for the petitioner in supplementary affidavit dated 3.1.2019. From the perusal of the record it appears that most of the cases pertain to the year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2016 and in all the cases the the petitioner is on bail and thus it has been contended that the detention order has no nexus to the said history. 28. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and consistent legal position as enumerated above, we set aside the impugned detention order dated 15.8.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 3 as approved by the State Government on 23.8.2018 and all consequential orders by means of which the period of detention was extended for a further period of three months. 29. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner, if not wanted in any other case, shall be set at liberty forthwith in accordance with law after due communication of this order to the authorities concerned, once again in accordance with law.