JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This writ application is filed by the mother of the detenu, inter alia, challenging the order of dentention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack-Opp. party No. 2 in exercise of power conferred upon him u/s 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention dated 13.8.2003 reads as follows: (1) You have been persistently indulging in antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Mangalabag and Purighat P.S. areas. You do not have ostensible means of livelihood and even money by extortion and other illegal means. Your antisocial activities gained momentum day by day and the people of the area are scared of your activities. You are a gangster. You are engaged in gang clashes and violence over the issue of extortion and other illegal means of collection of easy money. Your mere appearance in the locality creates panic among the peace loving citizens. The general public are so terrified that they do not have the courage to report against you either before Police or in the Court of law though they are seriously affected by your atrocious acts. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack reveals your high-handed criminal activities affecting public order. (2) On 10.4.2003 at about 4.00 p.m. you and your associates fireti at Manas Kabi of Ranihat Gopal Sahi near the Office of the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. You and your associates were armed with firearMs. Manas was badly hurt. He ran to the Paediatrics Ward, You and your associates chased him and fired another round aiming at Manas Kabi. The bullet M/ssed Manas and hit an innocent person of Kendrapara district. Manas ran away towards Medicine Ward and saved his life. Your ghastly attack on broad daylight created panic among the doctors, general public, patients and their attendants. They ran helter and shelter to save their lives. People present inside the Paediatrics and Medicine Wards closed down the doors and windows. Nearby medicine shopkeepers closed down their establishments out of panic. The entire Medical campus looked deserted. Normal traffic was paralyzed. The patients and doctors ran hither and thither to save their lives. A chaotic situation prevailed in the entire Medical campus. Doctors and other health workers of the Medical could not perform their normal duty. Nearby medicine shopkeepers closed down their establishments out of panic. The entire Medical campus looked deserted. Normal traffic was paralyzed. The patients and doctors ran hither and thither to save their lives. A chaotic situation prevailed in the entire Medical campus. Doctors and other health workers of the Medical could not perform their normal duty. The public order and tranquillity in the busy premier institution of health care and treatment was seriously affected. This incident was registered vide Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 58 dated 10.4.2.003 u/s 307/34 Indian Penal Code and 25/27 Arms Act. The case is under investigation. (3) The report of the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack reveals that you are the younger brother of veteran antisocial, late Padia Sahoo. You had taken oath to take revenge on Mangu Hati of Haripur, P.S. Purighat and his associates who were reportedly involved in the murder of your brother, Padia Sahoo. In order to execute your evil design, you had made conspiracy with your known gang members namely, Dipu alias Sangram Sahoo, Raghunath Sahoo, Laximidhar Ojha and others. After full preparations for committing murder of Mangu Hati, you had deputed your gang members under the leadership of Dipu alias Sang ram Sahoo to Lords Hotel, Haripur Road, Cuttack on 5.1.2003 evening to execute the crime. According to the conspiracy, at about 9.00 p.m., your gang members had attacked Mangu Hati at Rousapatna near Sen Bhavan by firing from revolver and throwing bombs at him. After getting information about the above incident, police personnel from Purighat P.S. reached the spot and shifted Mangu Hati to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital in the Police van in a critical condition where he was declared dead. This incident was registered vide Purighat P.S. Case No. 4 dated 5.1.2003, u/s 302/34/120(b) Indian Penal Code 25/27 Arms Act and 9(b) I.E. Act. You were arrested and forwarded to the Court on.9.1.2003 and was released on conditional bail. (4) You are involved so far in two heinous crimes. While you were on conditional Court bail, you committed further crime vide Managalabag P.S. Case No. 58/2003. You are capable of engineering and committing serious gang related violence involving murder and bloodshed. (5) As narrated above, you have been indulging in antisocial activities and engaged in gang related clashes and violence over the issue of extortion and illegal means of collection of easy money. You are capable of engineering and committing serious gang related violence involving murder and bloodshed. (5) As narrated above, you have been indulging in antisocial activities and engaged in gang related clashes and violence over the issue of extortion and illegal means of collection of easy money. You have not spared even a health institution like S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, where you did not hesitate to use firearms at your rival. This goes to show your utter disregard for the law of the land and norms of civilized society. (6) In spite of being arrested and forwarded in custody in the above said criminal cases, your antisocial activities have continued unabated.- You were released on conditional bail in Purighat P.S. Case No. 4 dated 5.1.2003 and after release you were involved in further antisocial and criminal activities disturbing and jeopardizing the peace, tranquility and public order of the locality. (7) At present you are in judicial custody being forwarded in Mangalabag P.S. case No. 58 dated 10.4.2003. In the said case you had filed bail petition in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack on 6.8.2003. You have further moved bail petition in the Court of the District & Sessions judge, Cuttack on 8.8.2003. There is every likelihood that you may be released on bail and once enlarged on bail you would again indulge in further antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. So with a view to preventing you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 was passed against you. (8) One set of copies of relevant supporting documents is enclosed as per list for your reference. (9) You are hereby informed that you may file representation against the order of detention to the State Government, Central Government as well as to the Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of detention suffers from the following infirmities: (a) All the grounds are only relating to law and order and not public order and ground No. 2 is based upon extraneous materials and completely vogue having no foundation. (b) There is delay of four months in passing the order of detention (Annexure-1). (b) There is delay of four months in passing the order of detention (Annexure-1). The last of commission of alleged crime was 10.2.2003 and dentention order was passed on 13.8.2003. There is no allegation during this period that he committed any crime so immediate detention was not necessary. (c) While the detenu was in jail custody the detention order was passed. There was no cogent materials that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and indulge in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The order was speculative since the prayer for bail was rejected by the S.D.J.M and so also by the District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack. (d) No documents were supplied relating to allegation 'made in Ground No. 2. (e) The injury report relating to Ground No. 3 was not supplied. (f) The post mortem report relating to Ground No. 4 was not legible and not in Oriya as detenu did not know how to read and writer Oriya. Hence the detention order is vitiated as the detenu could not be able to take effective representation. 3. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Mrs. T. Devakl v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1986 and in the case of Sankarsan Pradhau v. State of Orissa and Anr. (1994) 7 OCR 735 submitted that the allegations levelled against the detenu even if presumed to be correct, only made out a case of public order and not law and order inasmuch as the detenu was alleged to have committed the offence to take revenge against the murderer of his elder brother. The acts were not such as would cause or amount to cause fear and danger or affect the public tranquility or even cause a dent to the tempo of life in the locality. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the allegations made at best be said to be the acts leading to breach of law and not public order, and were individual in nature. The further submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the delay of four months caused in passing the order of detention from the alleged date of commission of the offence also reveals that there was no immediate threat and the order of detention is, thus, vulnerable. 4. The further submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the delay of four months caused in passing the order of detention from the alleged date of commission of the offence also reveals that there was no immediate threat and the order of detention is, thus, vulnerable. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State- Opp. Party No. 1 strongly repudiating the contentions made in the writ application. The allegation that all the documents were not supplied, is strongly repudiated. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted, rather emphatically, that the order of detention and the grounds of detention together with all legible copies of the documents relating to the detention of the detenu in two languages i.e. English and Oriya, were served in due time. It is also averred that the same were also sent to the Government of India within seven days of approval of the order of detention. According to the counter affidavit, the grounds of detention clearly reveal persistent antisocial and criminal activities of the detenu prejudicial to the maintenance of public order beyond all reasonable doubts. The grounds of dentention reveal that the detenu was a terror in the locality and was creating havoc in Mangalabag and Purighat P.S. areas. His antisocial activities gained momentum and the people of those areas were scared of his activities. The criminal and antisocial activities mentioned in the grounds of dentention were based on materials on record and would reveal that the same affected maintenance of public order and tranquility. It is also averred that all paraphernalia and mandatory requirements stipulated in the National Security Act were sacrosanctly followed before and after issuing the order of detention. 5. A separate counter affidavit is also field by the District Magistrate-Opp. Party No. 2 reiterating the stand taken by the State Government and justifying the requirements for-issuance of the order of detention. The allegation levelled in the writ petition are also strongly repudiated by the District Magistrate. In course of hearing, as directed, the Learned Counsel for the State produced the Government file and other records which were perused by this Court in order to appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for both sides. 6. To point out distinction between' "public order" and "law and order", Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme in the case of Mrs. 6. To point out distinction between' "public order" and "law and order", Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme in the case of Mrs. T. Devaki Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others. In the said case, it was held that a solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to have disturbed public peace or place public order in jeopardy, so much as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. Such a solitary incident can only raise a law and order problem and no more. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the main ground of detention as would be evident from the order of detention is the incident, which was alleged to have taken place at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital. This being a stray and solitary incident, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in consonance with the decision of the SC, the same cannot be a ground for detention under the National Security Act. The factual background of the case clearly reveals that the brother of the detenu late Padia Sahoo, was a veteran antisocial and also a gang leader. He was murdered by another gang. To take revenge of death of his brother, the detenu attacked Mangu Hati with his gang and killed him. It is also alleged that with an avowed oblique motive of taking revenge, the detenu was hunting the persons involved in his brother's murder and with his gang opened fire on one of the suspects in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that these were all individual acts which could be taken care of under ordinary criminal law and the rigorous of the National Security Act should not have been attracted as the acts alleged to have been committed could not be said to have disturbed public order. 7. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the acts alleged to have been committed by the detenu could not be said to have disturbed public order, specially in view of the fact that they were, if true, aimed to take revenge on the assailants of detenu's brother and were executed to satisfy personal vengeance. But then, on careful examination of method and mode by which the aforesaid crime was committed, we feel, the plea advanced cannot be accepted inasmuch the detenu did not keep the distinction between the effect potentiality of an act and actual effect caused by an act in mind. As has been pointed out by the SC in the case of Mrs. T. Devaki (supra) same act in different circumstances may cause different, more-widespread, serious effect. For instance, detenu might have chased Manas Kabi, alleged to be one of the murderers of his brother along with his associates, being armed with fire-arms inside the campus of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital and attacked him in broad day light and opened fire as a result of which, patients and their attendants ran helter and skelter to save their lives. The incident created a tremor in the hospital, the doors and windows of Paediatrics and Medicine Wards were shut down, the entire campus was deserted and normal traffic was paralyzed. Though the act of the detenu was directed against an individual, it was indeed to convey a message to public in general, the consequence of raising their voice, against the atrocities committed by the detenu's gang and creating a panic in creating chaotic situation in the locality inasmuch as no body came forward to state anything against the offenders. In the case of Mrs. T. Devaki (supra) the detention order was passed against the detenu basing upon a solitary assault on one individual inside a Seminar. No material was brought on record to show that the consequence and potentiality of the aforesaid incident were so great as to disturb the normal life in the locality or it disturbed general peace and tranquility in the area. Thus, the ratio of the said decision would not ipso facto apply to the facts of the present case. Apart from the said incident, Ground No. 4 would also reveal that the detenu along with his gang members took active part in committing the murder of Mangu Hati on 5.1.2003 evening. A bare perusal of the grounds communicated to the detenu reveals that the detenu was leading a criminal life being involved in a serious of crimes committed at different time. Even though he was arrested and released on bail, he continued similar type of activities. 8. A bare perusal of the grounds communicated to the detenu reveals that the detenu was leading a criminal life being involved in a serious of crimes committed at different time. Even though he was arrested and released on bail, he continued similar type of activities. 8. Perusual of the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit and materials available on original records as well as after hearing the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we feel, the first and foremost ground which needs to be considered in the present case is whether the alleged offence constituted an offence relating to law and order or public order. The question as to which will constitute public order was examined by this Court in the case of Sumanta Rout v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2004) 27 OCR 197. In the said case relying upon the decision in the case of Tilatama Parida v. State of Orissa (1997) 13 OCR 377, this Court observed that while deciding the question whether a particular act or acts amounts or amount to breach of "public order" or "law and order", one must ask the question as to whether such act or acts would lead to disturbance of current life of the community so as to constitute disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed. In the case of Tilatama Parida (supra), this Court observed: While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope in as much as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit arid public order would be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of 'law and order" and "public order" is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question in society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The distinction between the areas of 'law and order" and "public order" is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question in society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise the problem of law and order only it is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a panic eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". XXX 9. Examining a number of decisions, this Court in the case of Sankarsan Pradhan v. State of Orissa and Anr. (1994) 7 OCR 735, observed that while determining whether the disturbance or disorder amounts to breach of "law and order" or "public order", the following factors are required to be borne in mind: (a) The contravention of law always affects order, but before it can be said to affect the public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. (b) Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. (c) It is the degree of disturbance and its effect on the life of the community in a locality, which determine whether that disturbance mounts to bearch of law and order or public order. (d) An Act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality, it may not differ from another, but in potentiality it may be very different. (e) Whether a man has committed breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act on the society. (f) Every assault in a public place like a public road and terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic and terror in those who are the spectators. But that does not mean that all such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. But that does not mean that all such incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community life of the localities in which they are committed. (g) It is well established that starry and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. (h) Whether disturbance or disorder has led to breach of law and public order is a question of fact, there is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another. 10. Examining the grounds of detention in the touchstone of the observations made by this Court in the case referred to above, it appears that the detenu ha a long criminal background. Due to his antisocial activities, his very appearance in the locality creates panic among the peace loving citizens and general public are terrorized to such an extent that they do not have the courage to report against him either before the police or Court of law though they are seriously affected by his atrocious acts. By terrorizing public in general, the detenu used to move with his gang being armed with fire-arms, in broad day-light and venture to attack persons even in busy places like S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital and Haripur Road. The grounds reveal that the detenu is a die-hard criminal who can murder a person in broad day light. He has been indulged in antisocial activities and engaged in gang related clashes and violence over the issue of extortion and illegal means of collection of easy money. The observations made by the detaining authority, as would be evident from records, were based on materials available. On perusual of the allegations as enumerated in the grounds of detention and the original file, we do not find any illegality in the observations made by the detaining authority to the effect that the activities of the detenu amounted to contravention of public order. It further appears that in spite of the fact that several cases were filed against the detenu, he never turned from his antisocial activities inasmuch as soon after being released on conditional bail in Purighat P.S. Case No. 4 dated 5.1.2003, he was involved in further antisocial and criminal activities disturbing and jeopardizing peace, tranquility and public order in different localities. He also caused the murder of one Mangu Hati soon after during released on interim bail. 11. Perusual of records also reveals that as the detenu had continued his antisocial activities unabated, the question of any delay in issuing the order of detention did not arise. These records also reveal that all the documents supporting the detention order except the Oriya translation of the post mortem report were served on the detenu in time and the same were in Oriya as well as in English. That apart, the detenu never complained that any of the documents supplied to him was not legible. 12. So far as the last ground raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, i. e. the order of detention being passed while the detenu was in custody, and as such, there was no necessity for issuing the order of detention, is concerned, it is stated in ground No. 8 as follows: At present you are in judicial custody being forwarded in Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 58 dated 10.4.2003. In the said case you had filed bail petition in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack, The bail petition has been rejected by the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack on 6.8.2003. You have further moved bail petition in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack on 8.8.2003. There 'is every likelihood that you may be released on bail and once enlarged on bail you would again indulge in further antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. So with a view to preventing you from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 was passed against you. 13. The question as to whether a detention order can be issued when the detenu is in custody was also examined by this Court in the case of Tilatama Parida (supra) and was answered in affirmative. 14. 13. The question as to whether a detention order can be issued when the detenu is in custody was also examined by this Court in the case of Tilatama Parida (supra) and was answered in affirmative. 14. Law is no more res integra that in the matters where the detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard of the grounds of detention, and should be prima facie satisfied that there are chances of release of such persons on bail, and that there is necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. Substituting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention. The decision must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention is necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, or to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of substituting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order, if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent materials that there is likelihood of release of the detenu from custody and in view of his antisocial activities which are proximate in point of time, the detenu must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. N. Meera Rani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, followed). 15. In the case of Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. N. Meera Rani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, followed). 15. In the case of Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Union of India and another, the SC had the occasion to deal with similar point once again and set out the following principles: Even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed - (1) If the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he, is actually in custody; (2) If he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable materials plated before him; (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities, and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. 16. In the present case, the order of detention and the grounds of detention clearly reveal that the authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and/or there was possibility of his release on bail which is manifest in the grounds of detention. Perusual of the entire record also prima facie reveals that a situation has come when the normal law of the land was not felt adequate to curb the dare-devil, and high-handed activities of the detenu. Records also reveal that in past the detenu having been released on interim bail continued his criminal activities. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be on presumption and/or that it did not have any foundation. Merely because the detenu was in custody at the time of passing the order of detention, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the order of detention, if there is prima facie apprehension that the detenu may be released on bail. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; We also do not notice any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of detention. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed