JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.K. Misra, J.—In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the detention order dated 23.9.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Jalaun, respondent No. 3, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act passed on the basis of one and the same incident Hence, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The grounds of the detention in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 77891 of 2005 are contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. On 14.06.05 at 7.45 p.m. Mahendra Kumar Sharma informed at the P.S.Nadigaon that on the same day at about 5 p.m. he alongwith his father Ashok Kumar Sharma, his younger brother and his sister’s son went for marketing in Nadigaon market. As soon as they reached near the shop of Farid Kadri, a Marshal Jeep stopped there and Manvendra, Abhimanyu @ Dlmpal, Deewan Singh, Tajuddin @ Pinku and Jagbhan Singh armed with country made pistols alighted there. All the accused pointing towards his father exhorted to kill him. Upon this, Abhimanyu @ Dimpal fired a shot. Manvendra and Tajuddin @ Pinku also fired shots upon the first informant. He escaped unhurt. Due to the firing, there was panic in the market. General public became fear stricken and felt terrorized. The shop-keepers ran away from their shops. Thereafter, all the accused showing their arms and firing shots in the air retreated fearlessly. The first informant immediately took his injured father to Konch Hospital for treatment but before reaching the Hospital he died on the way. An F.I.R. being case crime No.65/05, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 was registered at P.S. Nadigaon. It is further stated therein that the deceased Ashok Kumar Sharma was an active member of a political party. 3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, teamed A.G.A, for the State as well as Sri R.D.Tewari, Counsel for the Union of India (in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 77891 of 2005). None appeared for Union of India in writ petition Nos. 78135 of 2005 and 78137 of 2005. 5. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, teamed A.G.A, for the State as well as Sri R.D.Tewari, Counsel for the Union of India (in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 77891 of 2005). None appeared for Union of India in writ petition Nos. 78135 of 2005 and 78137 of 2005. 5. The main ground of attack of learned Counsel for the petitioners in assailing the impugned detention order is that the incident in question related only to maintenance of law and order and not public order, specially when the impugned detention order was passed on the basis of a single incident. He further argued that in the F.I.R. as well as in the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner Abhimanyu @ Dimpal fired a shot upon the father of the first informant due to enmity. So, the incident, at the best could be a law and order problem and there could be no justification for preventive detention of the petitioners over and above the action against them for the alleged offence under the ordinary law of the land. Simply saying that the incident created atmosphere of terror in the area would not bring it within the ambit of public order. 6. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi A.G.A. argued that even a single incident of murder can be sufficient to disrupt the public order. According to him, the Incident had taken place in the busy market at about 5 p.m. and looking to this daring act of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the incident caused only problem of law and order and not public order. 7. Upon a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the grounds of detention, we note that it is stated therein that the petitioner Abhimanyu @ Dampal fired a shot on the father of the first informant due to enmity. From this, it is apparent that the crime was committed due to enmity and it had nothing to do with public order. Simply saying that the petitioners were members of an organized gang of criminals and the crime in question was committed in furtherance of their anti-social activities would not make it a case of public order. From this, it is apparent that the crime was committed due to enmity and it had nothing to do with public order. Simply saying that the petitioners were members of an organized gang of criminals and the crime in question was committed in furtherance of their anti-social activities would not make it a case of public order. Whether an incident disturbs public order or law and order has to be determined on the basis of the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances of each and every case. It depends on the reaction of public to the happening and consequent terror spread by culprits and atmosphere surcharged thereby. In the grounds of detention a general statement has been given but nothing specific has been given about the disturbance of public order. In the grounds of detention it is mentioned in very dear words that the deceased was shot dead due to enmity. In these circumstances, we find that the incident did not have its reach to disturb the public order. The incident like the present one cannot be converted into a case of public order for invoking the provisions of preventive detention. The reach and potentiality of the incident was not of such dimension so as to disturb the even tempo of life of the public. It related to the law and order problem only. No one else received any injury either. 8. In view of the above discussion, we find that the incident related only to question of law and order and it was not relatable to the maintenance of public order. 9. Consequently, all the three writ petitions are allowed and the impugned detention order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioners forthwith, if they are not wanted in any other case. Petition allowed. ———