As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged a detention order by the District Magistrate, Jalna, under the MPDA Act, classifying him as a "sand smuggler" affecting public order. The order ... relied on four recent criminal offences and two in-camera statements. The Petitioner was out on bail for one offence, but the detaining authority failed to consider the bail conditions or applications. The question arose whether the detention order, based on criminal cases and vague in-camera statements, sufficiently established a threat to public order to justify preventive detention, especially when the detaining authority did not consider bail conditions or clearly distinguish between 'law and order' and 'public order'. Finally, the High Court, relying on Apex Court judgments, quashed the detention order, finding non-application of mind regarding bail conditions, vague in-camera statements without proper verification, and a lack of live link between past acts and imminent disturbance of public order, emphasizing that preventive detention requires a direct threat to public order, not just law and order issues.