ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the detention order dated 4-6-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Bokaro, which was confirmed by the State Government dated 14-6-2002 and also the order dated 13-7-2002 confirming the order after rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that the petitioner was arrested by the Police of Bihar with the help of the police of Goa from Panjim on 27-7-2000 from Machali Bazar, Goa and thereafter he was brought to Jharkhand. The petitioner made a confessional statement before the police on 29-7-2000 and he confessed that he got certain murder committed at Bokaro which had taken place on 27-5-1999 and he also confessed the incident regarding murder of Ashish Das and on 8-8-1998 of Ajay Agrawal. Those cases were lodged against unknown persons. T.I. Parade was not held and the petitioner was released on bail by the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. It is also alleged that several owners of the City Centre had been served with certain letters asking for extortion from them of money and for which FIR was also lodged. The petitioner is said to have created extreme panic amongst the businessman and shop owners of the City Centre, Bokaro by activities of his gang. On the basis of which, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 4-6-2002 detaining the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (Bihar Act 7/1981) read with Notification No. 1635 dated 19th March, 2002 of Jharkhand. The petitioner had also filed a representation petition denying the allegation which was rejected by the State Government. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. T.R. Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned District Magistrate, Bokaro committed error in passing the order dated 4-6-2002 detaining the petitioner under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, as there is no specific or direct evidence against the petitioner for the alleged offence as well as the petitioner has been residing/staying now at Goa and, therefore, his involvement in those cases does not arise as well as those FIRs were registered against unknown and there had been no submission of charge-sheet till the arrest of the petitioner indicating that there is no clue whatsoever against the petitioner . It is further argued that only after the confessional statement made before the police by the petitioner, the allegations have been made and the documents have also been created as well as the statement of the petitioner was not recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164. Cr. P.C. and, therefore, the confessional statement recorded before the police has got no substance. It is further submitted that the petitioner was tortured by the police and his signature had been taken on certain blank papers as well as he had been forced to write something and therefore, question of his writing those letters does not arise and those letters had been manufactured after his arrest. The learned counsel also placed his reliance of the case of Suresh Budhermal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 East Cr Clause 78 : (1998 Cri LJ 4592). 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Government Advocate contended before me that there is no illegality in the order of detention passed by the learned district Magistrate, Bokaro, which has been confirmed by the State Government and also upheld by the Advisory Board. It is further submitted that several letters have been sent by the petitioner to different businessmen and shop keepers of Bokaro demanding RANGDARI and also threatened that if money is not paid they would be killed, which apparently indicates about the terrorism and criminal activities of the petitioner and even residing at Goa after absconding from Bokaro, he is indulged in extortion/Rangdari from the members of the business community. It is also submitted that the purpose of preventive detention is not to punish the criminal rather for maintaining public order and it is essential to see that the people particularly, the business community are doing their business peacefully. But, the petitioner is in habit of creating chaos and fairness amongst the business community of Bokaro and, therefore, the learned District Magistrate rightly passed the order for maintaining public order. The learned Government Advocate also relied upon the case of Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1989 Pat LJR 654. 5. From going through the record, it is apparent that the petitioner made confessional statement admitting to be involved in the murder and extortion cases. The learned Government Advocate also relied upon the case of Shambhu Nath Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1989 Pat LJR 654. 5. From going through the record, it is apparent that the petitioner made confessional statement admitting to be involved in the murder and extortion cases. One Laxmikant Kothari informed the police station on 27-5-1999 that his father Jeevan Lal Kothari was going from his house to get milk, when some criminals shot him dead. There was a letter placed on his dead body and it was written that he had been murdered because he had not paid the extortion money and the said letter was sent by one Parshuram Singh and in the top of the letter, it was written "Chhota Rajan". During investigation, it was detected that this murder was committed by the petitioner and he has been residing in Panjim, Goa with his changed name. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested from Machali Bazar, Goa on 27-7-2000. In the confessional statement, the petitioner also admitted that he was killed because he had refused to (sic) a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Likewise, he made confession about his involvement in other murder cases also saying that his gun men had killed Ashish Das, New Jeans Centre, City Centre, Bokaro on 15-4-1997, and a similar type of letter was also found on his dead body. On the basis of the letters placed by the several shop keepers, a case was also registered under Section 387/120B/34, IPC as in all those letters, extortion money between Rs. 3 lakhs to 5 lakhs have been demanded from the shop keepers and they were threatened that they would be killed if they refused to pay. It is also evident that during investigation, those letters sent for matching/verification with the Specimen handwriting of the petitioner. Bhola Singh to the Handwriting Experts of Central Forensic Institute Kolkata and the Handwriting Expert found the specimen handwriting of Bhola Singh/petitioner is of the same person. Against the order of detention, the petitioner had also filed a representation before the State Government and after considering the same the said representation of the petitioner was rejected confirming the order of the District Magistrate by order dated 13-7-2002 which was duly served upon to the petitioner on the same day. 6. Against the order of detention, the petitioner had also filed a representation before the State Government and after considering the same the said representation of the petitioner was rejected confirming the order of the District Magistrate by order dated 13-7-2002 which was duly served upon to the petitioner on the same day. 6. The facts of Suresh Budhermal Kalanis case (1998 Cri LJ 4592) (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Moreover, several letters involving the petitioner for the alleged offences have been detected in the instant case as well as the petitioner confessed his direct involvement in creating chaos and fearness in the Society and thereby upsetting public order which cannot be allowed. It is true that no one can be detained on the ground that he is likely to be released in the case. But, on this score only, the entire case involving the petitioner directly for creating panicky in the business community cannot be overlooked and thrown away, inasmuch as, there is a confession of the petitioner supporting with the letters about extortion of money from business community and, thereby disturbing public order and entire atmosphere of the Society. The Court must take the totality of the grounds mentioned in the order of detention. If there are other circumstances which may lead the detaining authority to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that the person concerned would be likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, this Court should be reluctant to interfere with detention order. In the instant case, there are other circumstances as well for reaching the conclusion. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in this context, has got no substance. 7. In Shambhu Nath Singhs case (1989 Pat LJR 654) (supra), it has been held as under : "The leaders of various gangs within their respective areas of operation force traders and businessmen as well as the ordinary citizens to pay to them regularly certain amounts commonly known as Rangadari tax, so that their lives may be spared. That is what is sometimes described as safety money. If their demands are not fulfilled they threaten the citizens with dire consequences, and very often execute these threats into realities. That is what is sometimes described as safety money. If their demands are not fulfilled they threaten the citizens with dire consequences, and very often execute these threats into realities. Sometimes these groups fight amongst themselves and when such rivalries came to the surface and widespread criminal activity is the natural consequence cannot be said that such criminal activities do not completely upset the normal tempo of civil life of the community ? Does it not create an impression in the mind of ordinary public and ordinary citizens that the administration will not be able to effectively protect their lives and liberty ? The answer to these questions must be in a very firm affirmative. The decree and sweep of the harm caused by such acts is immense and results in complete loss of faith in the ability of the State to protect the life of law abiding citizens. These are the realities of the situation, and those charged with the duty of maintenance of public order are not expected to live in ivory towers, completely oblivious of the stark realities. in the ultimate analysis every crime on paper appears to be an offence under one of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which can be punished under the ordinary law of the land. But the purpose of preventive detention is not to punish the criminal, but to prevent him from doing acts which adversely affect public order. In regard to the crimes that he may commit, the criminal must be punished in accordance with law. but with a view to avoid the nasty effect that such crimes have upon the life of the community, he must be detained so as to prevent him from indulging in activity prejudicial to public order." Further, in the case of Indradeo Mahto v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1973 SC 1062 : (1973 Cri LJ 862), the Apex Court has also observed likewise as under : "Difference between an ordinary law and order problem and that of public has been explained by this Court on several occasions and the legal position is by now fairly crystalised. In Dr. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709 : ( AIR 1966 SC 740 ) : (1966 Cri LJ 608) this Court dealt with the question at length and illustrated the difference by fictionally drawing three concentric circles, the largest representing public order and the inner most representing security of State. Every violation of breach of law would no doubt necessarily affect order and the frequency of such infraction may pose a problem of law and order, but it need not necessarily affect public order may not automatically affect security of the State. In Pushkar v. State of W.B. (1969) 2 SCR 685 : AIR 1970 SC 852 : (1970 Cri LJ 852) the difference between the concept of "public order" was stated to be similar to the distinction between "public" and "private" crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. The real test seems to us to depend on the degree and extent of the disturbance and act caused to the normal balanced peaceful tempo of civil life of the community and not on the mere definition of crime given to such acts in the law of crimes. Similar acts in different situation may give rise to different problems in one set of circumstances an act may pose only a law and order problem whereas in another it may generate deep and wide spread vibrations having serious abiding society so as to affect public order. One has to be weigh the degree and sweep of the harm the act in questions capable of in its contest. Every case has, therefore, to be considered on its own facts and circumstances." 8. Apparently, the petitioner (Bhola Singh) made confessional statement giving detail about his direct involvement in the act of extortion of money from business community of City Centre, Bokaro and whoever refused to give demanded money was killed or attacked by his gang as well as he used to write threatening letters to the businessmen. The letters are also proving the allegations that the petitioner is directly involved/ indulged in terrorizing the businessmen with a view to extort money, which certainly affects the public order. The grounds under which the detention order has been passed appear to be self sufficient and after being satisfied about the whole situation, the order detaining the petitioner was passed, which does not suffer from infirmity. 9. The grounds under which the detention order has been passed appear to be self sufficient and after being satisfied about the whole situation, the order detaining the petitioner was passed, which does not suffer from infirmity. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, coupled with the discussions made above, there appears no reason for interference to the order of detention. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this application, which is dismissed.