JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.C. Jain, J.—Detention orders dated 30.7.2005 impugned in these three Habeas Corpus Petitions were passed by the detaining authority—District Magistrate, Rampur, on the basis of one and the same incident. The petitions being related to each other, we propose to decide them by this common order. The petitioner in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 74250 of 2005 is Dillan, Sallan has filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 74254 of 2005 and in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 77516 of 2005 the petitioner is Majid. They have challenged the detention orders in question passed against them under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by the District Magistrate, Rampur and their continued detention thereunder as being illegal. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure 2 to each Writ Petition. The foundation for passing of the same was an incident which took place on 27.6.2005 at about 6 p.m. in Mohalla Bajodi Tola, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur, the F.I.R. of which was lodged by the injured of the incident, namely, Salim son of Mehdi Hasan the same day at 7.30 p.m. One Irshad Hasan @ Parvez was shot dead in the incident and the informant Salim was injured. Salim was a motorcycle mechanic and he had got sold a motorcycle ‘Freedom’ brand to Sallan (petitioner of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 74254 of 2005) and had got paid Rs. 500/- as part of the sale price to the seller. The remaining amount was promised to be paid by Sallan after few days. On 27.6.2005 at about 6 p.m. he happened to meet Sallan (petitioner of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 74254 of 2005, Mallan, Dillan (petitioner of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 74250 of 2005) and Majid (petitioner of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 77516 of 2005) at the milk shop of Ahmad Hasan in Mohalla Bajodi Tola. He asked Sallan to pay the remaining sale amount of motorcycle. Sallan replied that the motorcycle was not to his liking and his earnest money be returned to him. Salim told him that he would talk to the seller for getting returned the earnest money. However, the three petitioners and Mallan started hurling abuses on him and assaulted him with the butts of country made pistols. From the side of the Degree College, Salim’s maternal uncle Irshad Hasan @ Parvez happened to come, who questioned them for assaulting Salim. Salim told him that he would talk to the seller for getting returned the earnest money. However, the three petitioners and Mallan started hurling abuses on him and assaulted him with the butts of country made pistols. From the side of the Degree College, Salim’s maternal uncle Irshad Hasan @ Parvez happened to come, who questioned them for assaulting Salim. Sallan, Mallan, Dillan and Majid, leaving Salim, caught hold of Irshad Hasan and Sallan opened shot on his chest and Mallan on his temple. Majid opened fire on him (Salim) which caused injuries to him. Dillan also participated by hitting him and Irshad Hasan with the butt of country made pistol. After so injuring Irshad and Salim, the three petitioners and Mallan ran away flaunting their country made pistols creating terror all around. 3. The grounds of detention further state that the said crime committed by the petitioners in a crowded locality in broad daylight created an atmosphere of terror and panic in the area, completely disturbing the public order. The shopkeepers started shutting their shops. People started running helter-skelter, concealing themselves inside houses. When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, he found the locality to be desolate: The people who were terror-stricken slowly started appearing at the scene of occurrence whose shaken confidence could be restored with great difficulty by deployment of police force. The situation could be controlled and normalcy restored after great efforts. 4. Both of the injured, namely, Salim and Irshad Ahmad alias Parvez being taken to Sadar Hospital, Irshad was declared dead. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 6. We have heard Sri Javed Habib, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. and Sri S.N. Chatterji learned Counsel for the Union of India. 7. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that passing of the impugned detention orders on the basis of a given solitary incident was not at all justified; it was simply a law and order problem having nothing to do with the public order; there was no material before the detaining authority for his satisfaction that on being released the petitioners would repeat such an incident and that full material, i.e., statement of informant under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure has not been purposely supplied and withheld from being placed before the detaining authority. Another submission is that no bail application was moved by any of the petitioners and the same had been manipulated by the Investigating Officer and the complainant through some hired advocate. 8. On the other hand, it is the argument of the learned A.G.A. that it was an incident clearly affecting the public order which was completely disturbed. According to him, the detention orders could well be passed on the basis of solitary incident. The incident, he urged, was impregnant of the potentiality of its repetition and the detaining authority was not to wait for repetition of such incident by the petitioners. The material on the basis of which the detention orders were passed had been supplied to the petitioners and there was no delay in the decision of the representations of the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Union of India also urged that there was no delay in the decision of the representations of the petitioners. 9. We have carefully considered the matter. It is settled position of law that the detention order under National Security Act can well be passed on a solitary incident. It is the length and magnitude of the intensity of the terror wave created by an incident which is the guiding factor. Each case has to be judged on its own facts as to whether it relates to law and order or public order. We are firmly of the opinion that the present case was clearly relatable to public order. The petitioners allegedly committed this crime in broad daylight in crowded city area. Salim in his reply had not said anything to incur their displeasure as he had simply stated that he would get the earnest money returned after talking to the seller of the motorcycle. The petitioners who allegedly had firearms, without any apparent cause, were most unreasonable in getting provoked and assaulting Salim. It was obviously a self sought provocation. They were allegedly so unreasonable that an unconcerned person (intervener) was shot dead by them, demonstrating their dare devilry and exhibiting their criminal propensity. It is there in the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate that public order was completely disrupted after the incident and there was stampede with the running of people around helter-skelter. Normalcy could be restored only after deploying huge police force in the vicinity of the area. It is there in the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate that public order was completely disrupted after the incident and there was stampede with the running of people around helter-skelter. Normalcy could be restored only after deploying huge police force in the vicinity of the area. Commission of such an offence in the described manner cannot be brushed aside as law and order problem. After committing the crime in a dare-devil manner, the petitioners left the scene flaunting their weapons so as to threaten all around. The public life was disturbed and everybody was stunned in silence. It was found to be corroborated by the visit of the Investigating Officer at the spot. We, therefore, hold that it was a matter of public order. The argument that it was a law and order problem is rejected. 10. The satisfaction of the detaining authority was reasonably founded on the material placed before him, which was supplied to the petitioners too. There is nothing to indicate that there was anything in favour of the petitioners in any statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure which could affect the mind of the detaining authority to dislodge his satisfaction in passing the detention orders. Therefore, the argument of non-supply of relevant materials to the petitioners also does not carry any weight. 11. It is wholly imaginary argument that bail applications on behalf of petitioners had been got moved by the prosecution in collusion with the complainant through some hired advocate. The incident took place on 27.6.2005 and the detaining orders were passed on 30.7.2005. There is nothing on record to substantiate the above artificial contention of the petitioners. 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the three Writ Petitions. The detention orders passed against the petitioners and their continued detention thereunder cannot at all be faulted. All the three Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———