JUDGMENT : B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. 1. This writ of habeas corpus is filed challenging the detention order of Varthya Prakash Naik S/o. Roop Singh Naik, dated 27.1.2020, passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jogulamba Gadwal District, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018) (for short 'the Act'), and as approved by the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 393 dated 7.2.2020. 2. Heard Mr. A. Jagan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sharath Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention order is passed without any application of mind. The detenu was implicated in false cases. The alleged activities of the detenu for which crimes are registered against the detenu do not affect public order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the detention order was passed, by giving sound reasoning, to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu committed theft of cattle (sheep) in the limits of Jogulamba Gadwal and Mahabubnagar Districts alongwith his associates in an organized manner and created large scale fear and panic among general public. The detenu answers the description of 'Goonda' as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of Act. The detenu was involved in four theft cases within a span of two months, which created havoc among farming community and thus, it was necessary to pass the detention order. The detaining authority was satisfied about the reasonable probability of likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and to prevent him from doing the same, the detention order was passed. 5. The detaining authority has referred to five criminal cases as ground for detention. The same with relevant details is as under: Sl. No. Crime No. and Date Police Station Offence Date of arrest Particulars of Bail 1. Cr. 5. The detaining authority has referred to five criminal cases as ground for detention. The same with relevant details is as under: Sl. No. Crime No. and Date Police Station Offence Date of arrest Particulars of Bail 1. Cr. No. 91 of 2019 dated 12/13.7.2019 Dharoor PS under Section 379 IPC 3.9.2019 in Cr. No. 131 of 2019 of Maldakal PS and his arrest was regularized by PT warrant Detenu moved bail petition vide Cr. M.P. No. 873 of 2019 before Addl. JFMC, Gadwal on 16.9.2019, bail was granted on 20.9.2019 and he was released on 23.9.2019 2. Cr. No 137 of 2019 dated 27/28.7.2019 Thimmandoddi PS under Section 379 IPC 3.9.2019 in Cr. No. 131 of 2019 of Maldakal PS and his arrest was regularized by PT warrant Detenu moved bail petition vide Crl MP No. 872 of 2019 before Addl JFMC, Gadwal on 11.9.2019, bail was granted on 20.9.2019 and he was released on 23.9.2019 3. Cr. No 131 of 2019 dated 31.8.2019 Maldakal PS under Section 379 IPC 3.9.2019 Detenu moved bail petition vide Crl. MP No 452 of 2019 before Principal JFMC, Gadwal on 6.9.2019, bail was granted on 18.9.2019 and he was released on 23.9.2019 4. Cr. No. 133 of 2019 dated 30.8.2019 Maldakal PS under Section 379 IPC 3.9.2019 in Cr. No. 131 of 2019 of Maldakal PS and his arrest was regularized by PT warrant Detenu moved bail petition vide Crl MP No 444 of 2019 before Principal JFMC, Gadwal on 6.9.2019, bail was granted on 18.9.2019, and he was released on 23.9.2019 5. Cr. No. 102 of 2019 Makthal PS under Section 379 read with 511 IPC ---- ---- 6. The detention order points out that the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After 20 days of remand, he was granted bail despite opposition by the learned APP and he was released from jail. His activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public and it was necessary to detain him and thus, the detention order was passed on valid grounds and after arriving at subjective satisfaction. 7. The detenu is involved in five cases of cattle (sheep) theft. The cases are alleged to have been committed against farmers (specific individuals). The said crimes relate to law and order. The Criminal Procedure Code is a self-contained Code. It contains the provisions relating to arrest, investigation, prosecution, trial, conviction/acquittal etc. 7. The detenu is involved in five cases of cattle (sheep) theft. The cases are alleged to have been committed against farmers (specific individuals). The said crimes relate to law and order. The Criminal Procedure Code is a self-contained Code. It contains the provisions relating to arrest, investigation, prosecution, trial, conviction/acquittal etc. In a cognizable offence, the police officer can effect arrest of the accused even before investigation is completed. It is settled law that arrest is part of investigation. In case the accused is found to be involved in a series of thefts, it is the bounden duty of the prosecuting officers to strongly oppose the bail. Even if bail is granted and later, it is found that the accused is involved in similar offences or that the bail conditions are violated, the prosecution has got a right to file an application for cancellation of bail. After filing of the charge-sheet, when the case is registered and trial is commenced, during such time the presence of the accused is compulsory unless the same is dispensed with by the Trial Court. So at all times, from the date of arrest till trial is completed, the accused/detenu is under the surveillance of the Court. In such circumstances, it would be farfetched to say that there is every possibility of the detenu committing similar offences in future and that his activities would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the accused/detenu is proved guilty, then he has to suffer imprisonment but bypassing such mechanism provided under Cr.P.C., when the detaining authority chooses to invoke the provisions of the Act, it has to be kept in mind that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to the detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the safeguards provided to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are duly protected. In doing so, the detaining authority has to ensure that mechanism under the ordinary criminal law (Cr.P.C.) is not adequate to curb the activities of the detenu. In a recent decision of this Court in Rapolu Mahalakshmi v. State of Telangana, 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 950 (TS), it was held as under: 12. Every violation of criminal law does cause a ripple in the society. But the ripples can be calmed down by use of normal Criminal Justice System. In a recent decision of this Court in Rapolu Mahalakshmi v. State of Telangana, 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 950 (TS), it was held as under: 12. Every violation of criminal law does cause a ripple in the society. But the ripples can be calmed down by use of normal Criminal Justice System. It is only when an, offence strikes the society, like a tsunami, that as a weapon of the last resort, the detaining authority is justified in invoking the powers under preventive detention laws. 13. Therefore, while invoking the magical formula of preventive detention, the detaining authority is required to firstly consider whether the offences, allegedly committed by the detenu, can be dealt with within the normal course of Criminal Justice System or not? The detaining authority should also examine whether the release of the detenu can be prevented by opposing his bail applications or not? If bail were granted, whether an application for cancellation of bail can be filed or not? Whether his detention under judicial custody can be ensured or not? It is only after assessing these circumstances, and after being satisfied that the answer of all these issues is in the negative, that the detaining authority may be justified in passing the detention order. 14. It has repeatedly come to the notice of this Court that the investigating agencies, especially the police, instead of furnishing complete details about the offender to the Public Prosecutor, fail to do so. Therefore, the public prosecution is not armed with the complete criminal record of the offender. Hence, the Public Prosecutor is not in a position to vehemently oppose the bail application. Resultantly, many a times, the alleged offender is granted bail by the Courts. Even thereafter, the State does not move a petition for cancellation of bail. Instead, it lets the offender go scot free. Therefore, the State fails to perform its duty within the arena of Criminal Justice System. 15. In such a scenario, faced with a raising crime rate, the State turns to the use of preventive detention laws to tackle the menace of crime in the society. Therefore, even for petty cases, the offenders are being preventively detained by the State. Needless to say, such a use of preventive powers amounts to colourable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. Therefore, even for petty cases, the offenders are being preventively detained by the State. Needless to say, such a use of preventive powers amounts to colourable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 16. The entire political structure, which deals with democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law, is based on the bedrock foundation of the faith of the people in the systems created by the law. It is, thus, faith of the people which needs to be strengthened by the State. Too frequent misuse of preventive laws would naturally undermine the faith of the people in the administrative system of the State. Instead of seeing the State as a protector, the State would be seen as a persecutor by the people. When personal liberty is invaded at the drop of a hat, the State ceases to be a democratic one. Rather, it transforms itself into a fascist regime. In such a scenario, misuse of preventive detention leads to oppression of the people. However, the constitutional mandate does not permit the State, that too a welfare State, to change its colour and transform itself into a Frankstein monster. Therefore, even in the Constitutional scheme, although Article 22 of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention, even then it requires that the power should be used as sparingly as possible, and strictly in accordance with law. 8. A crime is considered to be a wrong against the society. The theft of sheep from farming community should be taken seriously by the police and the prosecuting agency; in the least possible time charge-sheet ought to be filed and trial should be commenced. But without resorting to such steps, merely because power is vested with the detaining authority under the Act, mechanically such power cannot be exercised and that too when the offences are committed against specific individuals and not against public at large. The preventive detention laws cannot be invoked as an easy way method bypassing the ordinary criminal law. If detention order is ought to be passed, it is very much necessary for the detaining authority to apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion that ordinary criminal law is not capable of acting deterrent against the detenu. The preventive detention laws cannot be invoked as an easy way method bypassing the ordinary criminal law. If detention order is ought to be passed, it is very much necessary for the detaining authority to apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion that ordinary criminal law is not capable of acting deterrent against the detenu. The High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in C. Neela v. State of Telangana, 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 760, held as under: The State cannot find an easy way out by choosing to invoke the draconian provisions of preventive detention laws against every criminal as a substitute for his prosecution. As discussed supra, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between disturbance to public order on one side and disturbance to law and order on the other and held that only in the former case the State is permitted to invoke the powers under the preventive detention laws. 9. Except verbatim presentation of the language found in the Act viz., the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to public order etc., there is no other material before the detaining authority to conclude that there is breach of public order. "Law and order" and "public order" are two different concepts. In Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10 , the Supreme Court held as under: The question to be considered in the present case is whether grounds (a), (b) and (e) served on Subhas Chandra Bose are grounds which are relevant to "the maintenance of public order". All these grounds relate to cases of assault on solitary individuals either by knife or by using crackers and it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that these grounds have any relevance or proximate connection with the maintenance of public order. In the present case we are concerned with detention under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act which permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof. It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof. It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act. The difference between the concepts of 'public order' and 'law and order' is similar to the distinction between 'public' and 'private' crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. In considering the material elements of crime, the historic tests which each community applies are intrinsic wrongfulness and social expediency which are the two most important factors which have led to the designation of certain conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen has distinguished 'public' and 'private' crimes in the sense that some offences primarily injure specific persons and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. (See Dr. Allen's Legal Duties, P. 249). There is a broad distinction along these lines, but differences naturally arise in the application of any such test. The learned author has pointed out that out of 331 indictable English offences 203 are public wrongs and 128 private wrongs. 10. It is not the gravity of the offence or the number of offences which determine the activities of the detenu as being prejudicial to the public order. The learned author has pointed out that out of 331 indictable English offences 203 are public wrongs and 128 private wrongs. 10. It is not the gravity of the offence or the number of offences which determine the activities of the detenu as being prejudicial to the public order. It is the impact on the general public; the reach such activities will have on the minds of the public and the fear which may cause disturbance to the peace and tranquility that would determine the element of public order. It is the quality of the act and not the gravity which is important to be seen to know whether public order is adversely affected or not. This Court is of the opinion that the basic elements for passing the detention order have not been kept in mind by the detaining authority and thus, it offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the detention order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 27.1.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O. Rt. No. 393, dated 7.2.2020 passed by the respondent No. 1 are, hereby, set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Varthya Prakash Naik S/o. Roop Singh Naik, at liberty forthwith, in case he is no longer detained in the criminal cases, which have been registered so far against him. 12. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.