JUDGMENT
M. Katju and S.K. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 30.4.2001 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident on the basis of which the detention order was passed is a solitary incident and it does not relate to law and order. Hence he submitted that the impugned order is illegal. We do not agree.
4. We have carefully perused the impugned detention order and we are of the opinion that the incident relates to public order, and even if it is a solitary incident, the detention order is justified. There is no absolute principle that a detention order cannot be validly passed on the basis of a solitary incident. In fact, it has been held in several decisions that a detention order can be passed even on the basis of a solitary incident depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence.
5. The grounds of detention given in Annexure-3 are that the petitioner not only killed one Rajiv Singh but also spread terror in the vicinity due to which the entire public was terrorized. The petitioner and his brother threatened the public not to leave their homes and not to give evidence. Moreover, the petitioner with his associate took the body of Rajiv Singh in a gunny bag (bora) on a motorcycle and reached the Jamuna river and cut the body into pieces and
threw them into the Jamuna river. This created panic in the locality, and people stopped coming out of their houses and nobody even dared to report the incident to the police.
6. Such acts of terrorism cannot be condoned. We are of the opinion that the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention relate to public order. As regards the petitioner’s submission that there was delay in deciding the representation, we are of the opinion there was no unreasonable delay in deciding the representation. The petition is dismissed.
