JUDGMENT Honble M.C. Jain, J.—Detention orders under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act in these three writ petitions were passed by District Magistrate, Aligarh (respondent No. 1) on the basis of one and the same incident. Therefore, we propose to decide them together by this composite order. 2. The petitioner in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 39594 of 2005 is Anina; Amit is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 39598 of 2005 and one Pappan is the petitioner in the third Writ Petition No. 42347 of 2005. The detention order is dated 24-2-2005 in Writ Petition No. 39594 of 2005. It is dated 14-3-2005 in Writ Petition No. 39598 of 2005 and the date of detention order is 24-2-2005 in Writ Petition No. 42347 of 2005. The grounds of detention are common being based on an incident dated 26-10-2004 of about 3.30 p.m. which took place in the market of Bara Gaon, P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh, registered at Crime No. 127 of 2004 under Sections 147/148/149/302, I.P.C. All the three petitioners are named accused alongwith some others in the F.I.R. that was lodged by Sarnam Singh the same day at 4.40 p.m. The background was of some election rivalry. One Jagmohan alias Lala was murdered in the said incident in execution of a criminal conspiracy which was allegedly hatched on 21-10-2004. On the eventful day and time, Jagmohan alias Lala with his father was going on Hero Honda Motorcycle No. U.P. 81-M/0168 from Aligarh to his village Dhoda being followed by two other motorcycles driven by Radha Raman (brother of deceased Jagmohan) and Prakash Chandra. When they reached in the market of Bara Gaon near the diesel shop of Chhedalal, a Maruti car No. UP 85L/2325 came from the side of Gonda and hit the motorcycle of Jagmohan alias Lala with the result that he and his father Sarnam Singh fell down. From the Maruti car, the present three petitioners as also Pradeep, Jitendra alias Jeetu and Sudhir (non-petitioners) alighted with firearms and started indiscriminate firing on Jagmohan alias Lala. As a result, he died at the spot. To create terror and to scare away the witnesses, further shots were opened and then the petitioners alongwith their companions made their escape good by the same Maruti car towards Gonda. The grounds of detention further state that the incident created an atmosphere of terror and panic in the market. As a result, he died at the spot. To create terror and to scare away the witnesses, further shots were opened and then the petitioners alongwith their companions made their escape good by the same Maruti car towards Gonda. The grounds of detention further state that the incident created an atmosphere of terror and panic in the market. The shopkeepers downed their shutters. People started running helter-skelter. Even tempo of public life was badly disturbed and public order was adversely affected in extremity. It is also there in the ground of detention that shopkeepers owing to fear did not open their shops for days together. S.P. Rural, Circle Officers of different Circles including sufficient police force had to rush the spot immediately and additional force also had to be deployed at the spot to control the situation to restore normalcy, for maintenance of public order and also to infuse confidence in people all around. 3. At the time of the passing of detention orders in question, the three petitioners were in judicial custody. The grounds further stated that there was great likelihood of their indulging in similar criminal activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order on being released on bail. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The petitioner in each petition also filed supplementary affidavit. 5. We have heard Sri Amit Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and learned Counsel for respondent No. 4-Union of India. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incident took place on account of personal enmity and it was simply a matter of law and order with no overtone of public order. According to him, none else excepting the deceased was allegedly targeted or hurt and the matter could not at all be deemed to be related to public order. It has also been urged that for an incident of 26-10-2004, the detention orders in question were passed belatedly on 24-2-2005 in the matter of Anina (ref: Writ Petition No. 39594 of 2005), on 14-3-2005 in the case of petitioner Amit (ref : Writ Petition No. 39598 of 2005) and on 24-2-2005 in respect of Pappan (ref: Writ Petition No. 42347 of 2005). 6. Relying on the case of T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 6. Relying on the case of T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1990 SCC (Cri) 348, the learned Counsel argued that solitary incident of murder for entirely personal reasons did not fall in the domain of breach of ‘public order’. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently argued that it was a case of public order. The incident, he urged, adversely affected the even tempo of life in great deal. He also urged that it was of no consequence that the detention orders were passed on 24-2-2005 and 14-3-2005 relating to an incident of 26-10-2004. 7. We have carefully considered the matter. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that each case has to be judged on its own facts as to whether it relates to law and order or public order. The answer depends upon the effect of an act on the life of the community. If the act disturbs and dislocates the even tempo of the life of the community, it would be an act affecting public order. In our opinion, T. Devaki’s case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners would not apply to the present situation because the facts of that case were entirely on different footing. There attempted murderous assault in a seminar was made because of political rivalry. The proceedings of the seminar were interrupted for a while but continued later on. The situation here is entirely different. The reach and potentiality of the incident was very enormous disturbing even tempo of life of the community. It was a planned and organized crime committed in broad daylight in a busy market in dare-devilry manner. The victim was done to death by resorting to indiscriminate shooting after hitting his motorcycle by the car from which the petitioners and their associates alighted armed with firearms. Even after the incident, the spectators were threatened and shots were fired to scare them away. It has categorically been stated by the District Magistrate Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh in his counter affidavits that the incident in question resulted in disruption of public order and normalcy could only be restored after deployment of huge police force in the vicinity. 8. We should point out that it was of no consequence that relating to an incident of 26-10-2004, detention orders were passed on 24-2-2005 and 14-3-2005. 8. We should point out that it was of no consequence that relating to an incident of 26-10-2004, detention orders were passed on 24-2-2005 and 14-3-2005. It is to be pointed out that the proceedings in the matter had been initiated on 1-1-2005. The petitioners were in jail when the detention orders in question were passed and they could well be passed under law. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Parmanik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 730 and another decision of this Court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 306, Jai Singh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the case of Sheshdhar Misra v. Superintendent Central Jail Naini ,1985 ALJ 1222 to urge that the alleged threatening of the witnesses by the petitioners could not be related to public order. We do not think that the said case law can back the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It has been held in the said case that if threat is given to the witnesses publicly with show of force or by firing gunshots in blatant and discriminate manner to overawe and terrorize them, causing sense of insecurity amongst witnesses and the members of public, it may affect the even tempo of life of community. 10. In Writ Petition No. 39495 of 2005 in the matter of Anina, learned Counsel for the petitioner also attacked the detention order as having been passed without application of mind. He urged that the grounds of detention inter alia stated that the petitioner was trying to be relased on bail whereas as per Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition, order for releasing him on bail had been passed by this Court on 16-2-2005. The argument, in our opinion, is based on superficial approach. Use of the said words do not disclose non-application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. The reason is that despite the passing of the said bail order, the petitioner was still in jail. In other words, he had not availed of the bail order by presenting personal and surety bonds and the detention order was served on him while he was still in judicial custody in jail. No particular set of words is required to be used in grounds of detention. In other words, he had not availed of the bail order by presenting personal and surety bonds and the detention order was served on him while he was still in judicial custody in jail. No particular set of words is required to be used in grounds of detention. It is the substance that matters, and not hyper-technicality based on play of words to find fault with the phraseography of the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention as mentioned have to be interpreted in reasonable and logical way, instead of in a pedantic manner. 11. On holistic consideration, the incident could not be deemed as law and order problem only. It was, in fact, related to public order. 12. In conclusion, we see no merit in any of these Writ Petitions and all the three writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Petitions Dismissed. ————