M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 21-1-2005 passed against him by respondent no. 3 -District Magistrate, Fatehpur under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The detention order is grounded on an incident which happened in between the night of 12/ 13th December 2004. At about 10 p. m. on 12. 12. 2004 S. I. Prabha Shankar Shukla of police Station Manjhanpur, District kaushambi with other police personnel and public witnesses, on a tip off, had reached village Pur Buzurg, Police Station Asodhar, district Fatehpur in search of murder case accused - Mahendra Pal and others at the house of Ram Naresh alias Ganesh. The door was knocked with the flashing of torch and the inmates of the house were given to understand that they were police personnel. Mahendra Pal was also inside the house of ram Naresh @ Ganesh along with other inmates. Seeing the police from the roof top, they did not open the door and purposely started raising shouts. Seeing no other way, the police personnel started to come back to the jeep with which they had travelled. In the way, the petitioner and others engaged them on the pretext of conversation, exhibiting concern. When sufficient number of persons had collected there, the petitioner and others, hurling abuses on police personnel with exhortation, shouted that they (police personnel) be killed for the temerity of making raid in their village, Sub-Inspector prabha Shankar Shukla was pushed down to the ground. On the call of the petitioner, his family members and his other associates launched assault or. the police personnel resorting to firing too. As a result, constable Ravindra Kumar Tiwari was shot dead at the spot. The petitioner and his associates gheraoed other police personnel, assaulting them. Somehow, Constable Sewa lal managed to sneak to run to the Police station, but he was chased and assaulted by lathis by the associates of the petitioner and he fell down unconscious. Ultimately, the police of Asodhar, District Fatehpur reached the spot at about 1. 30 oclock in the night and with great efforts the police personnel could be rescued with the arrest of the petitioner and his associates. A case registered as crime no. Ultimately, the police of Asodhar, District Fatehpur reached the spot at about 1. 30 oclock in the night and with great efforts the police personnel could be rescued with the arrest of the petitioner and his associates. A case registered as crime no. 137 of 2005, under section 147/148/149/323/332/342/504/ 302/307/353 I. P. C. and 7 of the Criminal law Amendment Act against the petitioner and others at Police Station Asodhar, district Fatehpur. The above incident completely destroyed the public order. An atmosphere of terror and insecurity was created. The grounds of detention also stated that the petitioner was attempting to be bailed out in the crime aforesaid and his application had been rejected by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Fatehpur on 6. 1. 2004. He had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, fatehpur and there was every possibility of his indulging in similar activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order on his being released on bail. ( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Shri dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for Union of India and Shri Arvind tripathi learned A. G. A. representing respondent nos. 2,3 and 4. ( 4 ) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident was not relatable to public order. Instead, it was only a law and order problem wherefor a case under different sections of the Indian Penal Code had already been registered for the law totake its own course with regard thereto. He urged that the detention of the petitioner under the National security Act is illegal. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been countered vehemently by the counsel for union of India as also by the counsel for union of India as also by the A. G. A. On consideration, we are firmly of the opinion that the incident could not be brushed aside as a law and order problem. It inevitably related to public order. The incident was an affront to administration and law-enforcing agency - police that they were prevented from laying hands on murder accused for whose search the house of Ram Naresh @ ganesh was raided by the police. The petitioner and his associates behaved as if they were law unto themselves and could keep the police at bay on the strength of brute. The petitioner and his associates behaved as if they were law unto themselves and could keep the police at bay on the strength of brute. A police constable was killed at the spot and injuries caused to other police personnel gheraoed in the village of the raid. It was only after the reaching of police of Asodhar, district Fatehpur that the captive police personnel could be rescued. The incident was bound to disturb public order in great deal, producing an atmosphere of terror and insecurity all around. We, therefore, reject the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was simply a case of law and order. We hold that it was a matter of public order. ( 5 ) IT has next been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail application of the petitioner had been rejected by the C. J. M. , Fatehpur on 6. 1. 2004 and his bail application moved before the Sessions Judge was rejected as not pressed on 17. 1. 2005, though the detention order in question was passed on 21. 1. 2005. Thus on that day, no bail application was pending in any court. This way, the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner was trying to get himself released on bail and there was every likelihood of his being released on bail was unfounded. Suffice it to say in this regard that dossier was sent earlier to 17. 1. 2005 when admittedly the bail application of the petitioner before the session Judge was pending. The bail application was got dismissed by him as not pressed on 17. 1. 2005 without assigning any reason. Obviously, smelling the movement of machinery for slapping detention order on him under National Security Act, he (petitioner) hit on a device to create hole in the legality of the detention order by not pressing his bail application before the Sessions judge on 17. 1. 2005, without assigning any reason. The satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur was well founded that he was really trying to be released on bail. ( 6 ) THE last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had no criminal antecedents and there was no basis for the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that on being released on bail, he was to indulge in like criminal activities. ( 6 ) THE last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had no criminal antecedents and there was no basis for the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that on being released on bail, he was to indulge in like criminal activities. We are not impressed by this argument either. As a matter of fact, the enormity of the incident itself provided sufficient basis for satisfaction of the District Magistrate that on being released, the petitioner was to indulge in the like criminal activities prejudicial to the society. We should also point out that as per nine Judges decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1994 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 1325 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2179 ) the detention order can be passed on one single ground. Even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient in forming the requisite satisfaction for detaining a person under the law of preventive detention. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petitioner challenging the detention order dated 21. 1. 2005 passed against the petitioner by the District magistrate, Fatehpur. Conversely, the detention order in question is perfectly legal, not suffering from any flaw whatsoever. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.