Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order under Sec.12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 issued by the District Magistrate, Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Historywise, the petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in 1970. He was also accused in Sonari P. S. Case No. 59, dated 7-9-1982, under Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The ground for the detention is that on 8-8-1987 at about 11.45 A.M. he shot Nirmal Mahto, a Tribal leader. The killing took place near the gate of Chamary Guest House of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at Jamshedpur. The shooting took place when the detenue along with Suraj Mandal and Gyan Ranjan M.L.As. and several others were coming out to attend the shradh of the mother of one Avtar Singh Tank. Nirmal Mahto, President of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was rushed to Tata Main Hospital but he succumed to the injury soon after reaching the hospital. The murder of Nirmal Mahto created tremendous upheaval at Jamshedpur. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, of which the deceased was the President, and which claims to agitate for creation of separate Jharkhand State, took it as an affront to the political and tribal aspirations. The upheaval resulted in several occurrences of assault and killing namely (i) Gamharia P. S. Case No. 38/87 dated 8-8-1987, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 330, 323, 427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (ii) Adityapur P. S. Case No. 150/87 dated 11-8-1987, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, (iii) Gamharia P. S. Case No. 39/87, dated 11-8-1987, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, (iv) Adityapur P. S. Case No. 348/87 dated 8-8-1987, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and (v) Adityapur P. S. Case No. 151/87 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. There can be no manner of doubt that the action of the detenu-petitioner disturbed the public order of Jamshedpur completely out of gear. The situation was brought under control by rushing large additional police force at Jamshedpur. There can be no manner of doubt that the action of the detenu-petitioner disturbed the public order of Jamshedpur completely out of gear. The situation was brought under control by rushing large additional police force at Jamshedpur. The authority had credible materials in its possession to show that the tribal population on the one hand were agitated about the murder of Nirmal Mahto and the detenu on the other hand was sending out threats from jail to the witnesses who would depose against him. 3. In my view, there can be not the least doubt that public order was disturbed by the act of the petitioner in killing Nirmal Mahto. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner did not contend that the public order was not disturbed. . 4. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not an anti-social element which is a pre-requisite for passing an order of detention. It was contended that in order to constitute an anti-social element the detenu must be habitually involved in committing offence Sec.12 of the Act so far as relevant reads as follows : Power to make order detaining certain persons-(1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained; (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that during [such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if Satisfied as provided in Sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section. It was submitted that in order to take action under Sec.12 the person intended to be detained must be an anti-social element. It was submitted that in order to take action under Sec.12 the person intended to be detained must be an anti-social element. The expression anti-social has been defined in Sec.2 (d) as follows :- Anti-social element means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commissions of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or (ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; (iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion race, language, caste or community or other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities; or (iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or (v) who has been convicted of an offence under Sec.25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959. It was contended that a person is said to be anti-social element if he himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits and attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence. On that basis it was submitted that since there was only one incident mentioned in the ground which promoted the District Magistrate to detain the detenu the latter cannot be held to be an anti-social element. The petitioner not having been alleged to have committed offence repeatedly, the requirement of the detenu being anti-social element was not fulfilled in the instant case. 5. The submission is attractive but rather fallacious. The expression "anti-social element" has been divided into five categories. In this behalf learned standing counsel No. 2 contended that the detenu was not an anti-social element within the meaning of Sec.2 (d)(i) but he was an anti-social element within the meaning of Sec.2 (d)(iii). It was contended that the act of the detenu (petitioner) promoted feelings of enmity between racial/community groups. The two groups were the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Tribal) and non-Adivasis. The deceased was a Tribal leader and the detenu is a non-tribal. 6. In my view the submission urged on behalf of the State has force and must be accepted. It was contended that the act of the detenu (petitioner) promoted feelings of enmity between racial/community groups. The two groups were the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Tribal) and non-Adivasis. The deceased was a Tribal leader and the detenu is a non-tribal. 6. In my view the submission urged on behalf of the State has force and must be accepted. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detenu had not done anything to bring about enmity and hatred between racial or language groups. It was contended that the petitioner (detenu) had not promoted enmity between different languages, race, etc. This submission looses sight of the words "or otherwise promotes feelings of enmity etc.". The expression "otherwise" must be given an extended content. It is difficult to lay down what activities will fall within that expression but it is obvious that words alone are not postulated to be the media for creating hatred between races and religions. The deceased and the detenu were so arrayed that the act of the detenu promoted hatred and enmity. To comment upon, the wisdom or propriety of the activities of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha led by the deceased is not within the scope of this application but this much is obvious that the action of the detenu in killing Nirmal Mahto brought about serious, upheavals in the society at Jamshedpur. In my view, the action of the detenu in killing Nirmal Mahto would fall within the ambit of the expression "otherwise". It is well known that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Soon after the killing several incidents of rioting and murder took place. May be, incidents were such in which the tribals assumed an aggressive role. That however, will not make any difference. The first shot was fired by the detenu a non-tribal. I have, therefore, not the least doubt that act of the detenu promoted enmity and hatred between the racial groups. 7. The submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the hatred came to pass between two political groups and not between two racial groups. That did not fall within the ambit of Sec.2 (d)(iii). The submission lacks substance. The activities of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha coalesce into political as well as racial activities. Much as we would like to put religion and political activities into separate compartments. That did not fall within the ambit of Sec.2 (d)(iii). The submission lacks substance. The activities of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha coalesce into political as well as racial activities. Much as we would like to put religion and political activities into separate compartments. It is not happening in the State of affairs existing in the country today. It may not be desirable but it often tends to units. The question in the instant case was not only of a political nature but it had racial hue as well. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order does mot show that the disturbance to public order was of the character of a Tribal v. Non-Tribal, and therefore, killing was only political complexion. I regret I have some difficulty in accepting this submission. In the ground of detention it has been clearly stated that : - The said Birendra Singh is at present in jail. However, he is likely to be released and this information has itself created panic amongst the tribal population and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha supporters in the District. Reports have, also been received that the said Birendra Singh has been sending threatening words from the jail that the witnesses against him will also be done to death as soon as he comes out of jail. The above information is based upon several station diary entries at the police station. It is thus obvious that the matter cannot be passed off merely as a dispute between two political parties. There is nothing on the record to show the political alignment of the detenu. It thus obviously was of the nature of Tribal V/s. Non-Tribal cadre. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Naram Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1984 SC 1334 to show that the detenu not being a habitual offender cannot be branded as an antisocial element. I do not consider it necessary to dilate upon that judgment as the present case falls within the ambit of Section 2 (d)(iii) and not Sec.2 (d)(i). In my view, the petitioners action was clearly provocative of the tribals. He murdered Nirmal Mahto in the presence of the several Tribal and non-Tribals in a dreaded devilish manner infront of the gate of Chamary Guest House. In my view, the petitioners action was clearly provocative of the tribals. He murdered Nirmal Mahto in the presence of the several Tribal and non-Tribals in a dreaded devilish manner infront of the gate of Chamary Guest House. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detention was mala fide as it had been ordered to dip (the wings of the accused so that he may not be able to defend himself ably against his prosecution. This submission is entirely devoid of merit and does not merit serious consideration. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the killing of Nirmal Mahito by the detenu disturbed public order. I am also of the view that the detenu was an anti-social element as his activities were calculated to promote hatred/enmity between tribals and non-tribal at Jamshedpur. 11. No other submission was urged on behalf of the petitioner. I, therefore, see no merit in this application. It is dismissed accordingly. There however, be no order as to costs. S.B.Sanyal, J. 12 I have perused the judgment of my Lord Uday Sinha, J. and I entirely agree with his conclusion and his reasoning. I wish to add only a few comments. The back-lash of the killing of Nirmal Mahto, the tribal leader, engaged or claimed to have been engaged for the socio-economic upliftment of the tribals of Chotanagpur, even by creating a separate Jharkhand State, resulted in the murder, loot and arson of the life and property of non-tribals. This very act on (the part of detenu spread a sense of hatred between tribal and non-tribal community. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this solitary act on the part of the detenu was for some rivalry between then and cannot be held to be an act intended to spread enmity or hatred between the two communities. The word "promote" has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary to mean "To contribute to growth, enlargement, to forward, to further, to encourage, to advance". The word "promote" has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary to mean "To contribute to growth, enlargement, to forward, to further, to encourage, to advance". The act of killing of the tribal leader at least has encouraged the feeling of enmity between tribals and non-tribals, inasmuch as on the very said date 8-8-1987, in P. S. Case No. 38 of 1987, one Amarendra Kumar Sinha, a non-tribal was murdered and within 3 days, two more innocent non-tribals, namely, Salesh Kumar Pandey (P. S. Case No. 150 of 1987) and Yogendra Sah (P. S. Case No. 39 of 1987) were murdered in retaliation, apart from other case of rioting and attempt to commit murder by the non-tribals. The resultant consequences of the act have been taken note of by the detaining authority in rightly arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner is an anti-social. It may not be lost sight of here that the petitioners antecedent is also not too glorious.