S. K. AGARWAL, M. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by Shakir Hussain alias Shakul against his detention by the district Magistrate (detaining authority) Rampur dated 26. 3. 2004. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case are that on the intervening night on 15/16. 1. 2004 these petitioners with three of his brothers and his companions entered the residence of Hazi Akbar Ali in village ahmad. Nagar, PS. Milak Khana, District Rampur. The deceased Akbar Ali, his wife Zainab and an adopted daughter of theirs were sleeping in the verandah of the house. These accused persons forcibly took them into a room They have cut the cord of the cot and tied the two-Akbar Ali and his wife Zainab, with the cord on the said cots. Thereafter they were injected with some tranquiliser to make them unconscious by the assailants. They were also mercilessly done to death with knives. The young girl aged about 12 years was all along put under threat to her life. She was also injected with the cause psychotropic substance to make he unconscious. After committing the dastardly crime the miscreants made their escape good from the spot. At about morning hours when the young girl regained her consciousness she rushed to her natural father and reported the occurrence, as it was witnessed by her. They came to the place of occurrence alongwith many other villagers and found two old persons mercilessly done to death. They were tied with the rope so that they may not offer any resistance. To minimise the resistance they were injected as earlier stated with some heavy dose of a sedative. The natural father of young girl after noticing the entire facts went to the Police Station to lodge the report. On the registration of the case the S. H. O. visited the spot and completed the formalities of investigation including collection of blood and simple earth from the spot and the inquest, sending the body for the post mortem examination and such other formalities. Head constable and constables was also deputed to the spot. The villagers under the guidance of Pradhan made a complaint to the S. H. O. of police Station Milak Khana after two days that the villagers are living in panic and terror due to the incident. Head constable and constables was also deputed to the spot. The villagers under the guidance of Pradhan made a complaint to the S. H. O. of police Station Milak Khana after two days that the villagers are living in panic and terror due to the incident. Since the day of occurrence the children have stopped coming out on the road of the village. Women have also stopped going to their fields even for fodder. Some other subsequent report of enquiry of the head constable clearly make out that the panic and terror in the heart and soul of the villagers was such that the entire village activity has come to a grinding hardly. The agriculture was lying unattended. The children stopped visiting school to attend the classes. This situation was reported most emphatically by the newspapers like Danik Jagaran and Amar Ujala on 17. 1. 2004. The occurrence as earlier stated was of intervening night on 15/16 January 2004. This situation was still prevailing around even several days after. Then, there are beat reports and the enquiry report including the application made on behalf of the villagers by the Pradhan ated 17. 1. 2004. the enquiry report of the constable dated 18. 1. 2004 and the report of L. I. U. of the same day. All these indicate clearly that serious apprehension did persist in the village. These facts were reported by the District Magistrate categorically in the detention order. No challenge to these facts has been thrown by the petitioners. There is no averment disclaiming these facts in the petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Shri Manzrul Islam has addressed us against the detention order on three counts. 1) The offence does not relate to the public order. The grounds alleged in the ground of detention are flimsy and manipulated by the police who had shown keen interest in their detention. It purely and exclusively relates to law and order. We have applied ourselves seriously to the facts of the case and the contention so raised before us by learned counsel for the petitioners Shri manzrul Islam: On a consideration we find that the allegations made in the detention order have substance. The brutality that was exhibited in committing the said offence by the accused person like giving sedative to the victims and tying them on the cot before causing their death by knives. The brutality that was exhibited in committing the said offence by the accused person like giving sedative to the victims and tying them on the cot before causing their death by knives. The extreme precision that was adhered to in the commission of this offence by the accused persons and the precaution taken by them to keep the offence a secret has left a strong echo in the minds of the people of the village. The sedation of the victim is an exemplary circumstance indicating devilous mind of perpetrators. The villagers who inhabited the village where the incident occurred are human being sensitive and understanding. The circumstances would have well impregnated the seeds of fear and horror in their mind to the extent that it must have benumbed their limbs and they must have lived in extreme fear. The tranquility of the village was positively affected. The normal village life was badly damaged. ( 4 ) WE have no doubt in coming to the said conclusion from the evidence available on record including the order of detention and from the failure of the petitioners to lay any challenge to these grounds. Undoubtedly we are not inclined to accept the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is accordingly discarded. ( 5 ) COMING to the next submission that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, rampur lacks any application of mind. Only one fact was brought to our notice from the order of detention i. e. it did not disclose the precise date about the submission of bail application to the first court and its rejection by that court. At a later stage in the Rejoinder affidavit it has also been stressed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent dismissal of the bail application on 16. 2. 2004 by the District Judge was also not brought to the notice of the District magistrate before the passage of the present order. Yet another fact has also been brought to our notice that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court on 24. 3. 2004 and the fact that the detention order has taken two more days in coming into existence leaves hardly any prospect of an application of mind District Magistrate. Yet another fact has also been brought to our notice that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court on 24. 3. 2004 and the fact that the detention order has taken two more days in coming into existence leaves hardly any prospect of an application of mind District Magistrate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners these facts are more than sufficient to quash the detention order on insufficiency of relevant material. ( 6 ) THE contention in other words is that the detaining authority i. e. District Magistrate, Rampur was kept in dark about the subsequent development. Had the fact of rejection of bail by the district Judge been brought to the notice of the District Magistrate the detention order may not have seen the light of the day. We do not agree with the submission for the simple reason that the dates later on were corrected. However it is true that the date of filing of the application was correctly shown but the date of hearing was though correct but month is incorrectly shown. The grounds of detention appended to the petition does not indicate the correction having been made by the detaining authority by hand in the copy that was sent alongwith the detention order to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the said order, which contained the corrected dates. These corrected dates were there in the report of sponsoring authority, though the dates were not corrected in the ground of detention All these papers were given to the petitioner alongwith order of detention. ( 7 ) THUS the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that had the fact of rejection of bail by the District Judge been brought to the notice of the District Magistracy order may not have been passed. The over riding fact to the submission is available to us and it is that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court on 24. 3. 2004 arid the detention order came into existence two days later to it. This clearly exposes to us that the grant of bail by this Court must have been communicated to the District Magistrate that is why the order had come into existence on 26. 3. 2004. It further proves to be genuine, the apprehension that the applicant was making several efforts for bail. This clearly exposes to us that the grant of bail by this Court must have been communicated to the District Magistrate that is why the order had come into existence on 26. 3. 2004. It further proves to be genuine, the apprehension that the applicant was making several efforts for bail. The fact was averred in the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, the omission pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in the detention order and inaccuracy in the date of the decision in the report loose all its weight. Thus despite the fact that in the detention order no dates of filing of bail application or no dates for its rejection by the sessions court were disclosed yet we find the analogy as we have also earlier discussed is sufficient to dismiss the contention as bereft of any merit. ( 8 ) THE last submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision on the representation of the petitioner was declined by the Central Government. We are at a loss to specify in the order that no foundation for the submission was laid in the petition. Our indication to file a supplementary affidavit filing details was not headed to. The submission hence cannot be entertained (sic) most of different materiel. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances we have no option but to reject the above submissions as wholly untenable. The murders were cold-blooded and most inhuman. They are capable of treating a terror psyche and affect upon the villagers can easily be gathered from the facts and circumstances discussed above. ( 10 ) IN view of the discussion made above we find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. . .