JUDGMENT By the Court.—The identification memo has been filed by learned AGA today, which is taken on record. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Ajeet Singh son of Sri Prem Singh, resident of Pisawa, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, who has been detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (for short ‘NSA’) challenges the order dated 14.10.2015 clamped by District Magistrate, Firozabad. 3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged by learned counsel for the parties. 4. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.A. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Vikash Sahai, learned AGA for the State. 5. To began with, it may may be mentioned that Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the detention of petitioner on the ground of infraction of any procedure with regard to approval/confirmation of the order of detention by the State Government or the delay in disposal of the representation. The sole ground on which the detention has been challenged is that the detention does not have any nexus to the maintenance of ‘public order’. Sri Shishodia confines his submission to the point that from the impugned order coupled with material which has been communicated to the petitioner, even it is accepted, on its face value as correct, it would, at the best, be a case of breach of ‘law and order’ and not a ‘public order’, and, therefore, the District Magistrate was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 3(2) of NSA. The submission has been repelled by the learned counsel for the respondents, who stated that in the light of the facts, circumstances and background of the incident, it was a case of disturbance of ‘public order’. 6. In view of limited controversy raised in this writ petition, the petitioner undoubtedly, would swim or sink with the finding whether in view of facts which are to be stated presently, it was a case of ‘law and order’ or disturbance of ‘public order’. The impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The relevant grounds and the materials are annexed with said order. The impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The relevant grounds and the materials are annexed with said order. The allegations against the petitioner as are unfolded from the impugned order and the material annexed therewith are that on 27.5.2015, the petitioner alongwith his associates has succeeded to get accused Pankaj @ Bhola freed from judicial custody while he was being transported at busiest NH-2 by bus bearing registration No. U.P. 75-M-7460 from district Court, Mathura to district Jail Firozabad, after attending the Court proceedings. At about 17.00 hours, the petitioner and his associates attacked upon the police personnel namely Ajit Singh, Jai Narayan, Subash Chandra and Amarjeet Singh, who were on above bus alongwith Pankaj @ Bhola by opening indiscriminate firing upon them, in which constable Jai Narayan received grievous fire arm injuries and rest police personnel also received lacerated wounds on their persons. The petitioner and his associates have also looted two Government rifles from police personnel. On account of aforesaid daredevil act of the petitioner and his associates, fear and terror have been crept in mind of the passengers of bus and nearby public and normal lives and routine of public was disturbed and the public order in the vicinity was totally ruined. 7. The First Information Report of aforesaid crime was registered against unknown assailants on information furnished by informant constable Ajeet Singh at Crime No. 585 of 2015, under Sections 395, 397, 224, 225, 412 IPC at 17.50 hours. The injured constable was first admitted in F.H. Medical College, Tundla, District Firozabad, from where he was referred to S.N. Medical College, Agra, keeping in view his serious condition. After receiving information regarding incident, a good number of police force including forces of different Police Stations, Circle Officer Tundla and Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Firozabad rushed to the spot. The police after incident, recovered looted Government rifles, one from beneath Etmadpur Bridge and other at road sides near village Mohamadabad and recovery memo was prepared during course of investigation. The statement of witnesses was recorded. On 7.6.2015 at about 23.25 hours near Baner-Bypass Tiraha, within Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, the petitioner was arrested on prior information of informant and during the course of arrest the petitioner fired on police personnel from country made Tamancha 315 bore. The statement of witnesses was recorded. On 7.6.2015 at about 23.25 hours near Baner-Bypass Tiraha, within Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, the petitioner was arrested on prior information of informant and during the course of arrest the petitioner fired on police personnel from country made Tamancha 315 bore. He was arrested on spot alongwith Tamancha, one empty and two live cartridges and two cases at Crime No. 228 of 2015, under Section 307 IPC and Case Crime No. 229 of 2015 under Section 25 Arms Act were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner confessed the commission of offence of Case Crime No. 585 of 2015 under Section 395, 397, 224, 225, 412 IPC, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad alongwith his associates and also admitted that they were successful in disengaging Pankaj @ Bohla from judicial custody, who too is their associate. During the course of identification, the petitioner was identified by three constables namely Subhash Chandra, Amarjeet Singh and Ajit Singh at District Jail, Aligarh. The entire incident of loot of Government rifles, causing injuries to police constables and disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola from judicial custody was published in daily newspapers namely ‘Dainik Jagran’, ‘Amar Ujala’, ‘Kalptaru’ and ‘Hindustan’ in edition dated 28.5.2015. The aforesaid day light daredevil incident flashed in the city of Firozabad like fire in jungle. The bus passengers as well as passers-by were feeling unsafe and they were so terrorised as to anger them at large. Prior to date of detention order petitioner has credited four criminal cases to his count as; (i) Crime No. 02 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, (ii) Case Crime No. 585 of 2015, under Sections 395, 397, 224, 225, 412 IPC, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad (iii) Case Crime No. 228 of 2015, under Section 307, Police Station Gandhipark, District Aligarh and (iv) Case Crime No. 229 of 2015, under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh. In case of loot and disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola, his bail was refused from Sessions Court and he moved bail application before this Court in which notices were issued to the State as well as other authorities concerned of District Firozabad. In case of loot and disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola, his bail was refused from Sessions Court and he moved bail application before this Court in which notices were issued to the State as well as other authorities concerned of District Firozabad. As there was every possibility of succeeding petitioner in getting bail, therefore, taking into account the criminal antecedent of petitioner and his involvement alongwith his associates in offence of Case Crime No. 585 of 2015, the District Magistrate opined that detention of petitioner is eminent to maintain the ‘public order’ and, accordingly, the impugned detention order was passed. 8. To challenge the accuracy of impugned detention order dated 14.10.2015, in the petition it has been averred that the petitioner was arrested in fake police encounter no injury case on 8.6.2015 and two cases were registered on the same day as Case Crime No. 228 of 2015, under Sections 307 IPC and Case Crime No. 229 of 2015 under Sections 25 Arms Act and on the basis of confessional statement, the petitioner was further implicated in Case Crime No. 585 of 2015. The confessional statement before police has no evidenciary value and the petitioner is victim of police atrocities and has been falsely roped with in aforesaid cases to make out ground for his detention under NSA. The petitioner was not kept ‘baparda’ and his identification parade was arranged about two months after his arrest on 8.8.2015 and the liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without sufficient and reasonable grounds. But aforesaid grounds were not pressed before us to challenge the detention order and above grounds can very well be looked by criminal Court under common law while dealing with the aforesaid cases and from this Court it is not expected to evaluate the evidencery value of the evidence collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation. 9. It is true that the personal liberty is more cherished than all other freedoms taken together. Detention without trial is a serious matter and the order of detention must be justified by the detaining authority, whenever human liberty is in peril and justice is threatened, the citizen should receive the fullest protection from the Court within the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution benignantly stretched and all the safeguards of the NSA liberally interpreted, of course, within the legitimate limit. This is one aspect of the matter when we view the rights of individual who is in our focus. The liberties and the privileges which an individual enjoys are, however, subject to the larger interest of the society. Though the liberty of an individual under our Constitution is very sacrosanct and authorities concerned have a constitutional duty to respect the same, the concept of individual liberty should not be so stretched to such unreasonable extent to force the detaining authority to sacrifice the National Interest or the ‘public order’. If the detaining authority feels satisfied in passing the detention order, the facts which impelled him to take such a drastic step cannot be shifted or probed by this Court since it has a limited role in the matter of examining validity or otherwise of the detention order. This Court does not sit in appeal over the detention order and it is not for this Court to go into and assess probative value of evidence available to the detaining authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamilandu, AIR 1999 SC 3897 , has taken view that when one’s liberty is to be curtailed on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with area of interference by the Court being limited, then within this limitation Court must see in the privileged areas that the detaining authority does not stretch illegitimately in exercise of its jurisdiction. Though the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter is limited with regard to the scanning of the facts which led to the satisfaction of the detaining authority it cannot be asserted or argued that the detention order is beyond the pale of scrutiny. 10. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, (2012) 7 SCC 181 , has held in para 4, as under; “The law of preventive detention is based and could be described as a “jurisdiction of suspicion” and the compulsion of values of freedom of democratic society and of social order sometimes might compel a curtailment of an individual’s liberty. However, the question of personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and the State authority cannot be permitted to take it away without following the procedure prescribed by law, otherwise it would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 11. However, the question of personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and the State authority cannot be permitted to take it away without following the procedure prescribed by law, otherwise it would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 11. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the prosecution version, even accepted, on its face value, as correct, even then it is a case of maintenance of ‘law and order’ and not a ‘public order’. Therefore, the detention order passed against the detenue is illegal, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 12. The point whether an act amounts to breach of ‘law and order’ or ‘public order’ solely depends on its extent and reach to the society. Distinction between the two is similar to the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. If the act is restricted to a particular individual or group of individuals, it breaches the ‘law and order’ problem but if the effect of reach and potentialities of the act is so deep as to affect the society at large and/or the even tempo of the society then it becomes a breach of the ‘public order’. There are plethora of decisions on the point, which are not required to be referred to, as it would only amount to tautology and burdening this judgment unnecessarily. A reference, however may be necessary of the view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini, AIR 1988 SC 208 , wherein the Apex Court found that “where the incident alleged against the detenu is that he committed a murder of person in night hours, the incident is confined to individual person and it is private crime as distinct from public crime. It does not in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor does it affect the peace and tranquility of people of that particular locality where the crime has been committed. Thus, the incident does not affect ‘public order’. It does not in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor does it affect the peace and tranquility of people of that particular locality where the crime has been committed. Thus, the incident does not affect ‘public order’. But where the detenus are alleged to have opened fire in bus locality resulting in death of one on spot and injuries others during the day time, the incident does affect ‘public order’ as its reach and impact is to disturb public tranquility and it affects the even tempo of the life of the people in the locality where the incident is alleged to have occurred. So also firing on an under-trial prisoner by the detenu in the Court premises, while the under-trial prisoner was being taken to jail by the policemen would create panic and terror in the minds of persons present there and thus it affects the even tempo of the life of the community in that place. Such incident certainly affects ‘public order’ and purports to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community of that area.” 13. In the background of the aforesaid views as expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court, when we examined the facts of the present case, we come to the conclusion that the incident took place on NH-2 in the broad day light. Three assailants on different motorcycles stopped the bus and entered inside the bus. They used chilly powder and opened indiscriminate firing and caused grievous injuries to police constables. They also put eminent threat to life of bus driver and conductor and ultimately were successful in disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola from judicial custody and looted two police rifles. The nature of commission of offence in day and at public place NH-2, undoubtedly, appears to have created panic and anger amongst the public at large and the incident does affect public order as its reach and impact was to disturb public tranquility and it affects the even tempo of life of public on bus and in the locality where the incident is alleged to have occurred. Further, it would not out of place to mention that next day on 28.5.2015, the incident of loot and disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola after causing injuries to police personnel were given cover on front page by four daily newspapers as mentioned above. Further, it would not out of place to mention that next day on 28.5.2015, the incident of loot and disengagement of Pankaj @ Bhola after causing injuries to police personnel were given cover on front page by four daily newspapers as mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid facts coupled with criminal antecedent and involvement of petitioner in the year 2003 in a case of murder, it transpires that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate appears to be reasonable and he was justified in exercise of jurisdiction of suspicion to clamp detention order against the petitioner. 14. In the result, the petitioner is not successful in challenging the detention order. His detention is clearly in accordance with procedure and established law. The writ petition has no merit, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.