This petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 19-5-2003 detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. 2. We have heard Sri S. M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri J. Lal learned Additional Government Advocate for the Union of India-respondent No. 4. 3. Although several points have been urged in the writ petition against the order of detention but the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly confined his submission to the point that the incident in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved, does not relate to public order. He vehemently contended that the alleged incident took place on a house and there is no eye-witness nor there was any material before the detaining authority to show that on account of the alleged act public order was disturbed, hence the impugned order of detention was not warranted. He further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. State of U. P. & others, reported in 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1437. 4. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the instance of the petitioner recovery was made from co-accused Danish and others. It is also contended that when the police made attempt to arrest, the petitioner and his associates fired from their country made pistol. The petitioner was however arrested but his other associate Danish managed to escape and for that reason Case Crime No. 38, 39 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act along with Case Crime No. 36 of 2003 under Sections 394, 302, 412 and 120-B, IPC are registered against them. It is submitted that on account of the alleged act of the petitioner public order of the locality was badly disturbed and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is justified. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. 6. It is submitted that on account of the alleged act of the petitioner public order of the locality was badly disturbed and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is justified. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. 6. From the perusal of the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is apparent that the incident had taken place inside the house on 19-4-2003 between 2 to 5 p. m. Admittedly, nobody has claimed to have seen the occurrence, therefore, the manner and place of occurrence, in our view, does not suggest that the alleged incident in any view of the matter comes within the parameter of public order. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. State of U. P. & others (supra) having considered several judgments of the Honble Apex Court and also a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ashok Dixit v. Union of India, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11151 of 1984, decided on 1-8-1985, observed as under: "the substance of these observations is that it is important to bear in mind the difference between law and order and the maintenance of public order. If an act affects the tempo of public tranquility it certainly affects public order otherwise it would be an act affecting the law and order which can be dealt with by the executive and is not a public order and in that event the order of detention cannot be passed. In the instant case as regards the third ground, in case the aforesaid principle is applied, it becomes crystal clear that the ground is also not in respect of public order and that by the aforesaid ground public tranquility was not affected but only a limited area appears to have been temporary affected where the occurrence took place on 11-12-1984 at about 4 p. m. and it did not affect the tranquility of community in general. In fact the general order is an aggravated form of breach of law and order which endangers a tranquility of the community, or the public at large. In the instant case we are satisfied that the alleged incident dated 11-12-1984 was not in respect of public order so as to affect the tranquility of the entire community. In fact the general order is an aggravated form of breach of law and order which endangers a tranquility of the community, or the public at large. In the instant case we are satisfied that the alleged incident dated 11-12-1984 was not in respect of public order so as to affect the tranquility of the entire community. Rather it was an isolated incident pertaining to the law and order problems only and no order of detention could have been passed. " 8. In the instant case, the alleged act of committing murder of the deceased or assault by fire-arm on the police party is confined to the deceased or the police party and the reach and effect of the act is not so extensive as to affect the public in general of the locality and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the alleged act disturbed the public tranquility or created any terror or panic in the minds of the people of the locality or it had any affect in the even tempo of the life of the community. No doubt the allegation does disclose commission of heinous crime but in view of the settled legal position the public order does not lie in nature and quality of the act but its degree and extent of its reach upon the society in the case in hand, the alleged act, in our view, has no affect on public in general and thus it cannot be a case of public order. There is no material on record to show that even tempo of life of the community because of the alleged act of the petitioner was so disturbed that the people of the locality were not able to perform their normal activities of life. 9. In the facts of the case and the material placed before us, we are of the considered view that the alleged act of the petitioner cannot be held to be an act prejudicial to public order merely on the ground that he had committed murder in day light. 10. Since the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the aforesaid grounds, we need not to discuss other points raised in the writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 19-5-2003 is hereby quashed. 10. Since the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the aforesaid grounds, we need not to discuss other points raised in the writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 19-5-2003 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith provided he is not required to be detained in any other case. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .