JAGABANDHU PURANPANDA Vs. THE DIST. MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking release of the Petitioner quashing the order of detention passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as per Annexure -1 dated 29 -9 -1989.

(2.) AS it is revealed from the ground of detention, the order of detention had been passed mainly on account of the fact that on 19 -9 -1989 the Petitioner along with two others had assaulted one Laxminarayan Panda inside the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri by using bhujali and iron rods. The Petitioner was armed with bhujali when he inflicted bleeding injuries on Laxminarayan Panda. This had terrified the members of the public who started running in different directions and according to the notice, that was an act carrying potential menace for disturbing the public order. A police constable who was in duty came out to rescue the injured, but was assaulted by the Petitioner on his head and had sustained bleeding injuries. As per the statements in Annexure -1, for some time the temple was deserted and normal life in the temple was affected. A police case was lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 307, 332 and 34, I.P.C. and the police case was registered on 19 -9 -1989 which was sue -judice on the date of detention. It was further indicated in the said notice that during the investigation of that case, the Petitioner had threatened that on his release on bail, be would take away the life of Laxminarayan Panda and a station diary to that effect was also made in the police station on 25 -9 -1989.

(3.) THE Petitioner of this case by his assault on Laxminarayan panda inside the temple might have caused some panic in the minds of some members of the public who were around the place of occurrence but cannot be said to have created any feeling of in security or panic so as to raise a question of maintenance of public order and can be taken care of under the Indian Penal Code. The quarrel as stated in the Annexure -1 is an offspring of their private enmity and the other case referred in the said notice namely of his assault on Damodar Mohasuar on 16 -5 -1988 was also an act of revenge based on previous quarrel which were not intended to affect the community at large. It was a disturbance of peace and order directed against individual which did not disturb the society so as to cause general disturbance to public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect on the life of the community that determines whether the disturbance amounted to situations in affecting the tranquillity of the community.