JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
1. Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 6.5.2005, passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980, passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Farrukhabad and his continued detention thereunder.
2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It is based on an incident dated 14.3.2005 occurring at 8 A.M. in Mohalla Ganga Darwaja, in town Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, The report was lodged the same day at P.S. Kayamgaj, District Farrukhabad at 8.30 A.M. by Vishun Dayal alias Munnu-brother of the deceased Ram Bilas alias Ram Besi. He was allegedly murdered in this incident in broad daylight. At that time, the informant, his deceased brother Ram Bilas @ Ram Besi and one Shiv Om were going to village Rutaul. There was enmity between the informant and his deceased brother on the one hand and Alok Kumar, Ram Dev (present petitioner), Pawan Kumar alias Dabboo etc. on the other and out of fear the informant and his brother had started residing in the town of Kayamganj with their relation Ram Kishore Tiwari. On the fateful day and time, Ram Bilas alias Ram Besi, informant Vishun Dayal and Shiv Om were going to village Rutaul. When they reached in front of the house of Govind Kaushal in Mohalla Ganga Darwaja, on a blue coloured T.V.S. Motorcycle Alok Kumar, Ramdeo (petitioner) and Pawan Kumar alias Dabboo came from southern side. The motorcycle was being driven by Alok Kumar who shouted aloud that Ram Besi be killed and all the three started indiscriminate firing towards him (deceased). To save his life Ram Bilas alias Ram Besi ran towards the house of Govind Ram, but he was shot dead by the three abovenamed including the petitioner. Alok Kumar even knifed him. The informant and Shiv Om raised shouts and challenged the accused but the petitioner and his associates offered threats that anybody daring to proceed ahead would be dealt with likewise. Then they went away firing. The grounds of detention further stated that that this incident created an atmosphere of terror and panic. The people started running helter skelter. The shopkeepers who were in the process of opening their shops, put down the shutters. The even tempo of life was completely shattered and public order was disturbed in extremity. People around concealed themselves inside their houses out of fear. People standing in a queue in the nearby temple to offer prayers, ran away because of this incident. It was also there in the grounds of detention that PAC had to be deployed for patrolling in the area so as to restore normalcy and infuse a sense of security in people around. The people were labouring under the shock of this dare devil incident committed in broad daylight. The grounds of detention further mentioned that the petitioner had surrendered in court on 18.3.2005. He was taken on police remand and he led to the recovery of countrymade pistol (weapon of offence) regarding which separate case under the Arms Act was also registered. He was said to be endeavouring to be bailed out and as per the grounds of detention, there was likelihood of his indulging in similar criminal activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order on being released on bail.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
4. We have heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi A.G.A. and Shri R.D. Tiwari, counsel for Union of India-respondent No. 4.
5. The sole argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner accused petitioner is that the case projected against the petitioner was of his having participated in the murder of the deceased owing to enmity. It was, according to the counsel, was only law and order problem having nothing to do with the public order and the clamping of the detention order under the National Security Act on the basis of the alleged single incident was not at all justified. On the other hand, it has been argued by the AGA that the incident in question completely disturbed the even tempo of the community and P.A.C. had to be deployed for restoration of normalcy. The crime, he submitted, was committed with planning.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter to adjudge the rival contentions of the parties. It goes without saying that each case has to be judged on its own facts to find out whether it relates to law and order or public order. The answer would depend upon the effect of an act on the life of the community. In case the act disturbs or dislocates the even tempo of the life of the society, it would be an act affecting public order. It is also well settled that detention order can be passed on the basis of a solitary incident. In the present case, the murder of Ram Besi was committed in broad daylight. It was a planned and organized crime. The victim was done to death by resorting to indiscriminate firing, petitioner and his associates having allegedly come dangerously armed with planning on motorcycle. Not only this, the informant and Shiv Om accompanying the deceased were threatened and firing was resorted to by the petitioner and his associates while leaving the spot to scare away all those around with the result that none could dare to chase and apprehend the petitioner and his associates. The incident in question resulted in disruption of public order and normalcy could be restored only after deployment of the P.A.C. In the vicinity, The effect was breach of peace of the community producing anxiety and panic in the locality. Shopkeepers downed their shutters and people started running helter skelter to save their lives. The even tempo of public life was disturbed in great deal. The act was Clearly prejudicial to maintenance of public order and it is not possible to accept the contention that it was only law and order problem. The incident was clearly relatable to public order, keeping in view the fallout of the incident.
7. No other point has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.