ORDER : 1. Smt. K. Rajeswari, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of her son Kolipaka @ Kokku Rakesh S/o Chandraiah @ Ramchandram, the detenu, challenging the detention order vide C. No. 102/PDC/KNR/2021, dated 27.05.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration [Spl. (Law and Order)] Department, Government of Telangana, dated 24.07.2021, passed by respondent No. 1. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Manoj Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that relying on three crimes registered against the detenu in the years 2020 and 2021 i.e. Crime Nos.186 of 2020, 74 of 2021 and 83 of 2021 of PS LMD Colony and Karimnagar-I Town Police Station respectively, the respondent No. 2, passed the impugned detention order, dated 27.05.2021. According to respondent No. 2, the detenu is a ‘Goonda’ as he has been indulging in a series of offences, such as Burglary and thefts in the limits of Karimnagar Police Commissionerate, thereby creating large scale of fear and panic among the people, adversely affecting the public order. Subsequently, the impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration (Spl. L&O) Department, dated 24.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the detenu; that the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Banka Sneha Sheela vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 530. The detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the three crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. But he continues to be in judicial custody for non furnishing of sureties. The detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the three crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. But he continues to be in judicial custody for non furnishing of sureties. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is every likelihood of detenu releasing on bail and on such release, there is imminent possibility of detenu indulging in similar offences which are detrimental to public order, unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of detention, is highly misplaced. Further, the alleged crimes do not add up to “disturbing the public order” and they are confined within the ambit and scope of the word “law and order.” Since the offences alleged are under the Indian Penal Code, the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted under the penal code. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention law against the detenu. Therefore, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions, as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the detenu is a Goonda. He has been indulging in a series of offences, such as Burglary and thefts and thereby creating large scale of fear and panic among the people, adversely affecting the public order, apart from disturbing peace and tranquility in the area. The detenu got bail in all three crimes relied upon by the detaining authority. Therefore, the apprehension of the detaining authority that the detenu would be released on bail in due course of time and on such release, he would indulge in similar prejudicial activities, is not misconceived. The series of crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were sufficient to cause a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Since the modus of committing the crime was lurking house-trespass or house-breaking and theft, it has created sufficient panic in the minds of the general public. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu and on considering the same along with the entire material, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, dated 24.07.2021. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu and on considering the same along with the entire material, the Government confirmed the impugned detention order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, dated 24.07.2021. All the mandatory requirements were strictly followed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. The impugned orders are legally sustainable and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is: “Whether the impugned detention order vide C. No102/PDC/KNR/2021, dated 27.05.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration [Spl. (Law and Order)] Department, Government of Telangana, dated 24.07.2021, passed by respondent No. 1, are liable to be set aside?” POINT: 7. In catena of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly opined that there is a vast difference between “law and order” and “public order.” The offences committed against a particular individual fall within the ambit of “law and order” and when the public at large is adversely affected by the criminal activities of a person, such activities of that person are said to disturb the public order. Moreover, individual cases can be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Therefore, there is no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws against an individual. Hence, according to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the detaining authority should be wary of invoking the immense power under the Act. 8. In Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in fact, deprecated the invoking of the preventive law in order to tackle a law and order problem. It was observed that every breach of public peace and every violation of law may create a ‘law and order’ problem, but does not necessarily create a problem of ‘public order’. The distinction has to be borne in mind in view of what has been stated in the grounds of detention. 9. It was observed that every breach of public peace and every violation of law may create a ‘law and order’ problem, but does not necessarily create a problem of ‘public order’. The distinction has to be borne in mind in view of what has been stated in the grounds of detention. 9. In Kanu Biswas vs. State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 SCC 831 the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the meaning of word ‘public order’ held that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of ‘law and order’ or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the ‘public order’ is a question of degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society. 10. In the present case, the detaining authority, basing on three crimes indicated above, has passed the impugned detention order, dated 27.05.2021. We shall present them in a tabular form the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offence complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cognizable/non-cognizable: Crime No. Date of Occurrence Date of registration of FIR Offences Nature 186/2020 of PS LMD Colony Karimnagar 02.09.2020 03.09.2020 Section 379 IPC Cognizable/Non-Bailable 74/2021 of PS LMD Colony Karimnagar 27.03.2021 03.04.2021 Section 379 IPC Cognizable/Non-Bailable 83/2021 of Karimnagar-I Town PS 25.02.2021 28.02.2021 Sections 457 and 380 IPC Cognizable/Non-Bailable 11. As seen from the material placed on record, all the crimes relied upon by the detaining authority relate to lurking house trespass or house breaking and theft. The detenu was arrested in connection with the said crimes and subsequently, he moved bail petitions in all the three crimes and the same were allowed. Under these circumstances, the apprehension of the detaining authority that there is every likelihood of detenu releasing on bail in due course and on such release, there is every likelihood of his indulging in similar offences which are detrimental to public order unless he is prevented from doing so by an appropriate orders of detention, is highly misplaced. Since the detenu has allegedly committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the said crimes can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Penal Code and there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke draconian preventive detention laws. Since the detenu has allegedly committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the said crimes can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Penal Code and there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke draconian preventive detention laws. Further, even if the detenu is granted bail in all the cases and released from jail and if it is found that the detenu is indulging in further crimes, the prosecution can apprise the same to the Court concerned and seek cancellation of bail. The detaining authority cannot be permitted to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of land, by ready resort to preventive detention. 12. Here, it is apt to state that acts which are similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case, it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore would amount to ‘law and order problem’ only, while in another, it might affect the public order. Some infractions of law may lead to disturbance of ‘law and order’ but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. In the instant case, grave as the offences may be, in the given circumstances of the case, he has committed against particular individual and not the general public at large. Hence, no inference of disturbance of public order can be drawn. The subject cases can certainly be tried under the normal criminal law/special law and, if convicted, can certainly be punished by the Court of law. Thus, the subject cases do not fall within the ambit of the words “public order” or “disturbance of public order.” Instead, they fall within the scope of the words “law and order.” Hence, there was no need for the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order. Even while passing the confirmation order, dated 24.07.2021, respondent No. 1 has failed to notice that the detenu continue to languish as under-trial in the jail. Once the detenu was already confined, the question of confirming the detention order would not even arise. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide C. No. 102/PDC/KNR/2021, dated 27.05.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration [Spl. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order vide C. No. 102/PDC/KNR/2021, dated 27.05.2021, passed by the respondent No. 2 and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt. No. 1656, General Administration [Spl. (Law and Order)] Department, dated 24.07.2021, passed by the respondent No. 1, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to set the detenu, namely Kolipaka @ Kokku Rakesh S/o Chandraiah @ Ramchandram, at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other criminal case. 14. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.