J. CHELAMESWAR J. ( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed with a prayer as follows:". . . to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce bikani Surender Yadav, S/o Narasimha rao, now detained in Central Prison, cherlapalli, before this Hon ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring that his detention is illegal and void and pass such other order or orders. . . " ( 2 ) THE first respondent herein directed the detention of one Bikani Surender Yadav s/o Narasimha Rao, under the provisions of a. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and land Grabbers Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Admittedly, the order of detention was approved by the State government by its order dated 04-08-2003. The case of the detenu was considered by the Advisory Board on 03-09-2003. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Advisory board by an order dated 08-09-2003, the government of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the order of detention and directed that the above mentioned detenu be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention. Hence, the present writ petition. , ( 3 ) ALONG with the order of detention, the grounds of detention was served on the detenu together with the list of the documents relied upon for the purpose of passing the detention order. ( 4 ) THE detenu apparently has a long interaction with the law enforcing agencies. In the grounds of detention, which were served on the detenu, the detaining authority mentioned 13 cases in which the detenu figured as an accused, of which, two ended in acquittal and the other cases pending investigation or trial (the further details of which may not be necessary at this juncture ). Even those two cases which ended in acquittal, it is alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenu has secured his acquittal by threatening the complainant in one case and the witnesses in the other case. Even those two cases which ended in acquittal, it is alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenu has secured his acquittal by threatening the complainant in one case and the witnesses in the other case. One of the other cases referred to in the grounds of detention is Crime No. 45 of 2002 on the file of the Police Station, Neredmet, for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. From the grounds of detention, it appears, in an incident that took place on 20-02-2002, which lead to the registration of the above mentioned case, three people were killed and some more sustained serious injuries. Unfortunately, the police could not complete the investigation within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of the remand of the detenu, in connection with the above case. Therefore, by an order dated 19-06-2002 of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, ranga Reddy in Crl. M. P. No. 218 of 2002 in crime No. 45 of 2002, the detenu was directed to be released on bail (A certified copy of the said order is placed before us ). ( 5 ) AFTER the detenu was enlarged on bail in the above mentioned case, six more cases came to be registered against the detenu, as can be seen from the grounds of detention one of them is Crime No. 289 of 2002, registered for the offences under Secs. 354 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 20-11-2002. The allegation therein is that the detenu along with his associates outraged the modesty of a young girl of 20 years, in a public place. The other case is in Crime no. 290 of 2002. According to the detention order, one K. Raju, S/o Bikshapathi, apparently a bold-soul tried to intervene when the detenu and his associates were outraging the modesty as mentioned in the earlier crime. Therefore, the detenu and his associates later went to the house of the above mentioned raju and stabbed him. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, another case in Crime no. 163 of 2003 is registered for the offences under Sections 364 and 307 of the Indian penal Code. The allegation therein is that the detenu and his associates kidnapped a person and attempted to kill him on 23-06-2003. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, another case in Crime no. 163 of 2003 is registered for the offences under Sections 364 and 307 of the Indian penal Code. The allegation therein is that the detenu and his associates kidnapped a person and attempted to kill him on 23-06-2003. ( 7 ) IN Crime No. 180 of 2003 for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code of Neredmet Police Station, the detenu and his associates went to the house of one of the witnesses in the above mentioned triple murder case, threatened a lady, who is a witness in the said triple murder case, not to depose against them and further threatened that if she did not head to their threat, the daughter of the witness would be killed. ( 8 ) FROM the above-mentioned facts, it emerges that the detenu is continuously facing allegations of indulging in criminal conduct, the truth of which can only be decided by the appropriate Court before which various cases are pending trial, if really those cases are allowed to go through the normal process of the fair trial. But the allegations on the basis of which some of those cases are registered as indicated above show that the detenu is not permitting the normal process of law to take its own course and is interfering with the process of justice. ( 9 ) NORMALLY, the material on the basis of which the detention order came to be passed should not have been interfered with. But, in the said detention order, the detaining authority unfortunately referred to the involvement of the detenu in Crime No. 207 of 2001 dated 06-08-2001 on the file of neredmet Police Station. It appears, in the above mentioned crime, the detenu was shown as accused of an attempt to commit suicide. ( 10 ) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy argued that the reference to the involvement of the detenu in Crime No. 207 of 2001 mentioned supra, is the reference to an irrelevant ground, for the alleged reason, as can be seen from the detention order, that the detenu is sought to be detained under the category of being a goonda with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order . ( 11 ) THE learned senior counsel, therefore, argued that the involvement of the detenu in the above mentioned Crime No. 207 of 2001, which is registered under Section 309 of the indian Penal Code, by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to have caused disturbance of public order , as Section 3 of the above mentioned Act, which authorises a preventive detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order . Learned counsel submitted the fact that the detenu was shown as an accused in number of criminal cases by itself would not necessarily mean that his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order ; at the worst, they are the violations of the law and order for which the detenu could be dealt with in accordance with the normal procedure established by law. ( 12 ) THE distinction between law and order and public order is well recognised in this country. The commission of a chain of offences need not necessarily create disturbance of public order . The disturbance to the public order is described by a catena of the decisions of the Supreme Court to be the disturbance in the even tempo of the social life either in the country or in any area of the country. The involvement of a person repeatedly in crimes might itself, depending upon the circumstances, create a problem of public order , more particularly, when the accused repeatedly resorts to violence in public places, coupled with the fact that he goes scotfree, subsequently, as he utilises the freedom granted to him by law for the purpose of threatening the witnesses not to depose against him. It is in this context that earlier we made an observation that normally this Court would not have interfered with the detention order. Unfortunately, the detaining authority made a reference to crime No. 207 of 2001, in respect of which we have already noticed that the detenu was alleged to have committed an offence under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, i. e. , attempt to commit suicide. Unfortunately, the detaining authority made a reference to crime No. 207 of 2001, in respect of which we have already noticed that the detenu was alleged to have committed an offence under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, i. e. , attempt to commit suicide. ( 13 ) PERHAPS, in a given case even an attempt to commit suicide depending upon the person involved and various other circumstances may itself disturb the public order , but in the present case no such disturbance of public order was created consequent upon the attempt of the detenu to commit suicide. ( 14 ) IT is settled law that in the matter of preventive detention where the constitutional rights guaranteed under article 21 and 22 are at stake reference to one irrelevant incident in the grounds of detention, is always held by the Supreme court to be a factor vitiating the detention order. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, it appeared to us at the time of hearing that the writ petition is required to be allowed on that ground but having regard to the various facts mentioned above, more specifically that the detenu is utilising the liberty secured by him on being granted bail in the various cases to threaten the witnesses in some of those cases, we came to the conclusion that the detenu should be prevented from resorting to such conduct of threatening the witness in the various criminal cases pending against him. Therefore, by an order dated 08-12-2003 for the reasons recorded therein, we initiated proceedings against the detenu under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, in connection with Crime No. 45 of 2002 and Crime No. 290 of 2002. ( 16 ) PURSUANT to the above mentioned order, the detenu is served and proof of service placed before the Court. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned senior counsel for the detenu submitted that he has been instructed by the detenu in the proceedings under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (Criminal 237 and submitted that a bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly or mechanically. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (Criminal 237 and submitted that a bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly or mechanically. No doubt, at para 4 of the said judgment, the supreme Court observed as follows:"rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial". ( 17 ) WHILE keeping in mind the caution given by the Supreme Court that the bail granted should not be cancelled mechanically, we also take notice of the observation made in by the Supreme Court regarding the need to cancel the bail whenever an accused, who obtained bail, interferes or attempts to interfere with the due course of administration of justice. Threatening the witnesses is certainly an interference with the due course of administration of justice. The detenu is alleged to have resorted to such an activity on more than one occasion, in connection with the pending Criminal cases - the details of which are already given earlier and mentioned in the detention order. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, we allow the writ petition for the reason mentioned above, but at the same time we also cancel the bail granted to the detenu in Crl. M. P. No. 218 of 2002 in Crime No. 45 of 2002 by an order dated 19-06-2002, and also the anticipatory bail granted on 07-03-2003 in Crl. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, we allow the writ petition for the reason mentioned above, but at the same time we also cancel the bail granted to the detenu in Crl. M. P. No. 218 of 2002 in Crime No. 45 of 2002 by an order dated 19-06-2002, and also the anticipatory bail granted on 07-03-2003 in Crl. M. P. No. 323 of 2003 in Crime No. 290 of 2002 on the file of Police Station, Neredmet. ( 19 ) THE detenu Bikani Surender Yadav would now be treated as under trial prisoner in connection with the various cases pending against him. (Crime No 45/2002 and Crime no. 290/2002 ).