ORDER Usha Mehra, J.
1. Shrikishan Satish Gitpitia has assailed the order of detention dated 27th October,1999 passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act,1980 (hereafter called the Act) inter alia, on the grounds that lodging of two or three FIRs will not amount to "prejudicial activities" nor would affect the "public order". At best it could be a law and order problem for which FIRs have already been registered. The extraordinary provisions of the Act could not have been invoked due to the lodging of these FIRs. Secondly there was no evidence to prove that petitioner pressurised or intimidated the witnesses. That in the ground of detention cases of 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1995 had been relied upon by the detaining authority, whereas in most of these cases he has either been acquitted or discharged.
2. In order to appreciate the points raised, we may have a look at the brief facts of this case. The Commissioner of Police found that petitioner was engaged in commission of crimes involving use of force and offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. This conclusion he arrived at from the facts available on record. A perusal of the record shows that FIR No.159 dated 29th May,1984, FIR No.587/84 dated 22nd October,1984 P.S. Shahdara were registered under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. FIR No.60/86 dated 13th March,1986 and FIR No.110/90 dated 16th May,1990 were registered under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. FIR No.488/93 was registered under Section 392/394/398/411/34 IPC. FIR No.112/95 was registered under Section 324 IPC and FIR No.481/98 was registered under Section 379/411 IPC. These cases were registered against the petitioner at various Police Stations. Complaint in FIR No.159/84 was that on 29th May,1984 petitioner was found threatening people near Bus Stand, Gandhi Nagar. He was apprehended by ASI Shyam Lal of P.S. Gandhi Nagar and on his personal search a Buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. He was, however, acquitted in this case. He was arrested in FIR No.587/84 when a Buttondar knife was recovered from him. In that case also he had been acquitted. The case against him in FIR No.60/86 under Section 399/402 IPC was that on 13th March,1986 he was found along with his associates in Harsh Vihar Colony behind Jail premises planning to commit dacoity. A 12 bore country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from his possession. On 16th May,1990 SI Sheoraj Singh of P.S. Gokulpuri while patrolling received a secret information on the basis of which petitioner was apprehended near Pulia Ganda Nalla, Wazirabad Road, Gokulpuri. He was found in possession of Buttondar knife. The case of the prosecution in FIR No.488/93 under Section 392/394/398/411/34 IPC was that petitioner along with four persons committed robbery at knife point in Redline Bus on Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj. They robbed one person of Rs.50/-. Petitioner as well as his co-accused Charanjit Dabbu were arrested. The robbed amount was recovered from him along with one Buttondar knife. He has been discharged in that case. The case in FIR No.112/95 was that petitioner as well as other accused Charanjit were in lockup in Karkardooma Court. He asked Charanjit to arrange Rs.5,000/- for him, to which Charanjit refused. He got annoyed and inflicted injury with blade on the face of Charanjit. He has been acquitted in this case. FIR No.488/98 was registered on the complaint of one Subhash Chand Garg. The petitioner was arrested because he along with other boys robbed Mr.Garg of Rs.40,600/- and gold chain at the knife point in DTC bus near Shastri Park, Seelampur and also robbed another passenger Vipin Kumar Rai of Rs.25,000/-. FIR No.481/98 was registered on the complaint of Anand Singh wherein he stated that while he was travelling by DTC bus from Durgapuri Chowk to ISBT, petitioner picked his pocket up and deprived him of Rs.850/-. This he did alongwith his two accomplices Ved Prakash and Islamuddin. All the three accused were overpowered by PCR staff when alarm was raised.
3. On account of his involvement in criminal activities which directly and indirectly effected public peace and thus caused alarm, danger and harm to the society. His activities and in particular his robbing the bus passengers were found by the authorities to be prejudicial to public peace and order. On account of his activities it was found that petitioner was desperate and dangerous and further it was believed that he would engage again in the commission of offences affecting the society. It was in this backdrop that impugned order under Section 3(2) of the Act was passed.
4. The question for consideration is whether there was sufficient material available on record for detaining authority passing the impugned order while taking into consideration the cases against the petitioner for the year 1984-1995. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Shri Kewal Singh, DCP (Hqrs.) it has specifically been denied that the criminal cases committed by the petitioner during the period from 1984 to 1995 were not taken into consideration while passing detention order. The details of those cases were mentioned solely with the purpose to show the criminal history of the petitioner. He had been discharged/ acquitted in some of those cases because witnesses did not support the prosecution case in the Court. The reason why witnesses and even the complainant not supporting case was found out to be due to the pressure exerted by the petitioner. Ms.Mukta Gupta, counsel for the State contended that the very fact that the petitioner has expressed his confidence that he would be acquitted in all the remaining cases show that he has already exerted pressure on the witnesses by intimidating them.
5. That the detention order passed on 27th October,1999 could only be executed on 26th November, 1999. It could not be executed earlier as the petitioner avoided it by using all possible efforts. He absconded in order to evade his arrest and even during this period had been indulging in criminal activities. This is apparent because of registration of a case under Section 392/398/34 IPC vide FIR No.445/95 at Police Station Lahori Gate and another case under Section 379 IPC vide FIR No.235/99 at Police Station Dilshad Garden. The petitioner has been snatching and committing robbery in the running buses. Since the offences were committed in public places and even in the running buses it cannot b said that activities of the petitioner were not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Criminal activities of the petitioner badly affected the public peace and safety. People at large did not feel safe while travelling in public transport. Therefore, it cannot be said that such criminal activities of the petitioner pertains to law and order problem only and not to public order.
6. That submission made by counsel for the State has force. The very fact that not only witnesses went hostile but even the injured complainant went hostile leave nothing for imagination rather carves out a strong ground to infer that the complainant and witnesses went hostile because of certain pressure. On their becoming hostile benefit has gone to the petitioner. This circumstance strengthen the argument of counsel for the State. Committing robbery and snatching the pockets of the passengers in running buses definitely effected the society at large. This act by itself cannot be called a law and order problem. In fact Apex Court interpreted in what circumstances action can be called "public order" and in which cases it would be "law and order" problem. This is depending upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. The Apex Court while considering the case of Smt. Tarannum Vs. Union of India & Ors. , came to the conclusion that in the facts of that case the problem arising therein could not be related to "public order" because in that case the incident took place on 16.2.1997 at 7.00 p.m. in the house of one Vijai Chaudhary. According to respondents, the detenu along with three other companions looted gold ornaments, watches and cash amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- from the house of Vijai Chaudhary by wielding knives and pistols. As the incident happened in the house of an individual, the Apex Court held that the incident related to "law and order" problem and not to "public order", therefore, the authorities were not right in passing the detention order. The Apex Court while coming to this conclusion considered its earlier decisions namely of Smt. Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan Vs. Union of India and Harpreet Kaur (Mrs.) Harvinder Singh Bedi Vs. State of Maharashtra .
7. Perusal of observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi (Supra) as well as Harpreet Kaur (Supra) makes it clear that if an offence is committed in public place and the motive force is to terrorise the public which directly or indirectly affect the tempo of the life or the community, then such an act cannot be said to be s a "law and order" problem. It is only when act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community that such a problem can be called "law and order" problem. Even the law and order situation when assumes the gravity and mischief of a "public order" by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out, it can get converted into public order. Therefore, what we have to see is the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it. Committing offence in public transport create a sense of insecurity in the mind of the public at large and, therefore, affect the public order. As said By the Apex Court in the case of Harpreet Kaur (Supra) crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilisation of the day. Order is basic need of any organized civilised society and any attempt to disturb that order affects the society and the community. The potentiality of the act which as an affect upon the temp of the society and the public tranquillity cannot be but called a disturbing public order. Therefore, objectionable activity of the detenu has to be judged in the totality of the circumstances to find out whether those activities have any prejudicial effect on the society as a whole or not. If the society and not only an individual suffers on account of the questionable activities of a person then such an activity is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and are not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. Therefore in the facts of this case, since it has come on record that petitioner had been committing robbery and snatching in public transport, it definitely had terrifying effect on the public order and tranquillity. Hence it cannot be but called having direct nexus with the criminal activities of the petitioner which disturb the public peace and which activity is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8. Contention of Mr.Rohit Sharma that the activities of the petitioner related to the law and order situation, in view of our above discussion, find no substance. The activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be confining to an individual having no effect on the tempo of the life of the community. Therefore, reliance by Mr. Sharma on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Dixit Vs. State of UP and Ors. [1984 SCC (Criminal) 625], Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal [1970 SCC (Criminal) 67] and Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. is of no help to him. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that if the activity is related to law and order then the detention order is bad, but if the criminal activity of the detenu has a direct or indirect nexus and whereby the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity it will fall within the ambit of "public order". Such an activity cannot be but called an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the facts of this case, it can safely be concluded that the activities of the petitioner had a direct nexus with the tranquillity of the public travelling in public transport and at public places hence his activities cannot be but prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Those cannot be called individual act relating to law and order situation.
9. For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in the petition to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to cost. Petitioner be informed through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.