R.N. Dutt, J.
1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the detention of Ananda Mohan Sanyal under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
2. The detention order was made by the District Magistrate of Malda on June 27, 1967 with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was furnished with grounds for his detention.
3. There are three grounds which read as follows:
1. On 22.6.67 at about 12.00 hrs. you along with 3/4 hundred persons of your area looted away mango worth Rs. 2000 from the garden of Kutubuddin Ahmed of Chandpur, P.S. Ratua at Saharal, P.S. Gazole.
2. On the same day at about 14-00 hrs. you along with 2/3 hundred persons of your village and also of the neighbouring villages looted away mango worth Rs. 500 from the garden of Sk. Mandal Box of Kalftala lane, Englishbazar town at Araji Deharul, P.S. Gazole.
3. On the same day at about 17-00 hrs. you along with two hundred other persons looted away mango worth Rs. 2/3 hundred from the garden of Lalit Ranbangshi of Sek Para, P.S. Gazole.
4. Mr. Ganguly's main contention has been that these grounds cannot relate to 'public order'. We find that the grounds relate to three incidents on the same date within five hours. The nature of the incidents is the same, namely, that the detenu with some 200 or 300 persons looted mangoes from three different mango gardens. The allegations indicate that the detenu with others committed theft of mangoes from three gardens in the course of the same day. There is no allegation that in any of these incidents the detenu or the men who were with him either threatened the owners with assault or used force against the owners. The grounds do not disclose that at any time before the particular date the detenu was involved in such conduct. The incidents alleged no doubt indicate that the detenu committed some offences and this has certainly connection with law and order but it is difficult to hold from the allegations made that 'public order' was involved. 'Public order' no doubt means tranquility of the public in general and this includes individuals too. But, as we have said, the allegation is merely about looting mangoes from the gardens and no more. We are not prepared to say in the facts of this case that the grounds relate to maintenance of 'public order' and in that view of the matter, we think that the order of detention is invalid.
5. In the result, the Rule is made absolute, the order of detention is set aside. Let the detenu be released forthwith.
N.C. Talukdar, J.
6. I agree.