Important Point
In a preventive detention case, distinction between concept of “public order” & “law and order” is the degree of disturbance and its impact upon the even tempo of life of society which

ORDER

D.K. Jain and A.K. Sikri, JJ. —By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Mohd. Afzal prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the pro­priety and validity of the order of detention dated 20 June 2003, passed by the Com­missioner of Police, Delhi (hereinafter re­ferred to as ‘the detaining authority’) under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 {for short ‘the NSA’) on being satisfied that the petitioner’s deten­tion was necessary with a view to prevent­ing him from acting in any manner prejudi­cial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 20 June 2003. Against the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA. The case of the peti­tioner, along with his representation was placed before the Advisory Board, who opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the: petitioner. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12(1) of the NSA, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi con­firmed the aforesaid order of detention and directed that the petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e., 20 June 2003.

3. According to the grounds of deten­tion, which are in the narrative form, the petitioner is an active, desperate, danger­ous criminal and a bad character of Bun­dle/A of the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi. He started his criminal activities in the year 1990 at the age of about 19 years and was involved in 18 criminal cases, en­listed in the grounds, such as voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, riots, house-trespass, obstructing public servants from discharging their official duties, crimi­nal conspiracy, criminal confinement, kid­napping, attempt to murder and murder. He was also involved in the offences punish­able under the Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Out of the said 18 criminal cases registered against him, the petitioner has been acquitted/dis­charged in most of the cases. In five cases, he is facing trial and three cases are stated to be under investigation. It is alleged that the prosecution witnesses against him are extremely afraid to depose against him in the Court, which is evident from his acquit­tal in the cases, where even the injured, the complainants and near relatives did not support the prosecution case and had turned hostile due to intimidation and terrorising tactics by the petitioner. He is stated to be so dangerous and desperate criminal that he has not spared even his father and police officials.

4. Reference to the said 18 cases has been made in the grounds of detention with a view to show his past criminal record. How­ever, two cases registered against him un­der FIR Nos. 246 dated 19 July 2002 at P.S. Welcome, Delhi and 177 dated 15 June 2003 at P.S. Seelampur. Delhi respectively under Sections 186/353/307/34, IPC and 506, IPC which are stated to be under investigation, have specifically been relied upon in the grounds of detention.

5. On the basis of the material placed before him, briefly referred to above, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the said criminal activities clearly show that the petitioner is a desperate and dan­gerous criminal, whose activities are preju­dicial to the maintenance of public order; his acts of violence against the public and property show his complete contempt for the law of the land; since he is usually found in possession of firearms; the prosecution wit­nesses are extremely terrified to depose against him in Court; his criminal activities have disturbed the normalcy of the society and he is such a dangerous and desperate criminal that he does not even spare the police officials from attacking them. Thus, keeping in view his criminal record, the de­taining authority felt satisfied that