- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. The petitioner through this petition has challenged the detention order dated 14-3-2005 passed against him by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Aligarh under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.
(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THEy are 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 IPC. He is a 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. UP 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. U. P. 85 L/2325 came from the side of Gonda and hit the motorcycle of Jagmohan alias Lala with the result that he and his father Sarman Singh fell down. From the Maruti car, the present petitioner Sudhir Kumar alongwith five others alighted with fire-arms 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 petitioner alongwith his companions made his 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 and skelter. Even tempo of public life was severely distributed and public order was adversely affected in extremity. It is also there in the grounds of detention that the shopkeepers on account of 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. We have heard Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi learned AGA representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Counsel for Union of India-respondent No. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. It has first been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned detention order was passed by the respondent No. 2 without application of mind. He backed this contention by submitting that there was no uniformity in the detention order and the report of the sponsoring authority as to how the incident occurred. The respondent No. 2 stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner and his associates, namely, Pradeep armed with rifle, Anina, Amit, Pappan and Vinesh armed with countrymade pistols alighted from the Maruti car and started indiscriminating firing on Jagmohan alias Lala. On the other hand, the report of the sponsoring authority was that it was the shot fired by Pradeep from rifle that hit Jagmohan alias Lala in his abdomen resulting in his death and it was thereafter that the petitioner and his associates allegedly opened shots to create terror and scare away the witnesses. We do not think that there is any meaningful variance or discrepancy in the report of the sponsoring authority and the grounds of detention made basis of by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned detention order. Needless to say, it is the substratum that matters which as per the report of the sponsoring authority as also detailed in grounds of detention is the same, i. e. , the petitioner was one of the persons who had alighted from the Maruti car in question. The petitioner and his associates armed with fire-arms resorted to indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of Jagmohan alias Lala. The shot hitting Jagmohan alias Lala was one opened by the petitioner's associate Pradeep from rifle. All of them resorted to open further shots to scare away the witnesses and create terror to make their escape good. All of them including the petitioner did allegedly escape by the same Maruti car towards Gonda. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be faulted on the ground of alleged non-application of mind on hyper-technicality banked upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This argument is rejected.
(3.) IT has next been argued for the petitioner 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. 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 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 the present case, the reach and potentially 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- delivery manner. The victim was done to death by resorting to indiscriminate shooting after hitting his motorcycle by the car from which the petitioner and his associate alighted armed with fire-arms. Even after the incident, the spectators were threatened and shots were fired to scare them away. 6. On overall consideration, the incident could not be deemed as law and order problem only. It was, in fact, related to public order.;