ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for release of her husband Bonthu Subramanyam, S/o Rambabu, Age: 33 years, R/o Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District, who was detained as per the Detention Order in Rc.No.Mgl1/4/2022, dated 18.04.2022 passed by 2nd respondent under Section 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, "the Act 1 of 1986"] and later confirmed by the 1st respondent as per the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1103, dt:13.06.2022. 2. The detention order dated 18.04.2022 was passed by 2nd respondent on the ground that the detenue was involved in following four cases and thus he is a "Bootlegger" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. 1. Cr.No.1032/2021, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu P.S, dt. 27.09.2021 U/s 7(B) r/w 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 2. Cr.No.1564/2021, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu, dt. 20.12..2021 U/s 7(B) r/w 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 3. Cr.No.81/2022, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu, dt. 12.01.2022 U/s 7(B) r/w 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 4. Cr.No.221/2022, Special Enforcement Bureau, Prathipadu, dt. 01.02.2022 U/s 7(B) r/w 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 3. Hence the writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent filed the counter and opposed the writ petition. 5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Rajesh Babu and learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General on behalf of respondents. 6. Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioner severely challenged the detention order on the main thrust of argument that out of the four crimes which were taken as a ground for detention, except in one crime, the detenue was not directly involved in three crimes. In other three cases, he was neither present at the scene of offence nor the police arrested him at the spot. However, he was implicated in those three crimes on the alleged identification by the raid party. He further argued that there were no independent mediators in three cases for effecting either seizure or destruction of the contraband. In other three cases, he was neither present at the scene of offence nor the police arrested him at the spot. However, he was implicated in those three crimes on the alleged identification by the raid party. He further argued that there were no independent mediators in three cases for effecting either seizure or destruction of the contraband. Therefore, the participation of the detenue in three cases is a myth, if not highly doubtful and the truth or otherwise of the complicity of the detenue in those three cases has to be decided only after a full-fledged trial. He would strongly urge that having regard to the nature of the crimes, the general law can sufficiently take care of such cases and hence the Detaining Authority ought not to have passed detention order on the basis of such highly doubtful cases. Learned counsel lamented that the 2nd respondent who is Detaining Authority has not bestowed her attention to the crucial factual and legal aspects in right perspective while passing the detention order. Learned counsel thus prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the detention order. 7. Refuting the arguments of the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader would argue that the detenue was very much involved in all four crimes. They would show that in some of them detenue was directly arrested at the spot and in some matters though he was present at the spot and preparing ID liquor, he skulked away on seeing the raid party. Therefore, his involvement in all the crimes is writ large. Since he is a habitual offender and deals with illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to the public health, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed the detention order. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 9. POINT: (a) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above respective arguments. Under section 3 of Act 1 of 1986, the Government may, upon being satisfied with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land grabber that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (b) Thus, Section 3 empowers the Government that if it satisfied with the category of persons narrated in the said section that, it is necessary to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then make an order directing that such person be detained. Needless to emphasize that the detention envisaged in Section 3 is a preventive but not punitive detention whose object is mainly to prevent such categorized persons from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The clause “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” is defined under Section 2(a). According to this Section, if any of the categorized persons except the drug offender, engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any one of his activities which effect adversely or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order it amounts to acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the explanation, the term "public order" is explained. A public order shall be deemed to have been effected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely if any of the activities of any one of the persons referred in section 2(a) directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. (c) Thus a cumulative study of Section 2(a) and section 3 would give an understanding that for preventing a bootlegger from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, his activities shall appear to the Government that they will effect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order and the public order with reference to bootlegger means his activities cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. 10. In the above context when the impugned detention order is perused, the 2nd respondent ordered preventive detention of the detenue on the ground that he is involved in four cases under A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and thus he is a bootlegger. 11. In the grounds of detention, the particulars of the cases involved by detenue are mentioned. 10. In the above context when the impugned detention order is perused, the 2nd respondent ordered preventive detention of the detenue on the ground that he is involved in four cases under A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and thus he is a bootlegger. 11. In the grounds of detention, the particulars of the cases involved by detenue are mentioned. The first case is Cr.No.1032 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB), Prathipadu P.S. The FIR and other records would show that on 27.09.2021 at about 06:00 PM the SEB staff reached at entrance of the Durga Temple at road margin found one person standing with one mica hand bag in his hand, on seeing the uniformed police, the said person left the mica hand bag in his hand and skulked away. The raid party recognized him to be Bonthu Subramanyam – the detenue and the raid party got opened the said bag and found four polythene covers each containing five (5) liters of transparent white liquid and on opening them found the contents to be ID liquor emitting pungent smell. The raid party seized the contraband. A case was registered against the detenue. As rightly argued by the petitioner's counsel, it is not known as to how the police have identified the detenue. Further, no independent mediators were secured to prepare the seizure mahazarnama. Therefore, the complicity of the detenue in this crime is a doubtful fact which has to be resolved only after a full-fledged trial. 12. The second case is Cr.No.1564 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau (SEB), Prathipadu P.S. the FIR and other records would show that on 20.12.2021 at about 08:30 AM the SEB police while patrolling for prohibition and excise offences reached at Yerrakalavagattu situated at Dharmavaram to Vommangi Punta road found two persons while there are stirring with wooden sticks in plastic drums. On seeing the uniformed persons they left the place leaving the stick on the spot and ran way. The raid party (Sub Inspector) recognized the ran away persons to be A1-Palivela Ravi, and A2-Bonthu Subramanyamthe detenue. The raid party got opened and found fermented jaggery wash with the contents of black jaggery, ammonia, alum and yeast. The raid party found total 37 drums each drum containing 200 litres of fermented jaggery wash. The raid party seized the contraband under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. The raid party got opened and found fermented jaggery wash with the contents of black jaggery, ammonia, alum and yeast. The raid party found total 37 drums each drum containing 200 litres of fermented jaggery wash. The raid party seized the contraband under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. A case was registered against the A1 and A2-the detenue. In this case also it is quite surprising as to how the police could know that one of the offenders is the present detenue. Further, there are no independent mediators for police proceedings. In this case also the involvement of deteneu is a doubtful one which should be determined after a full-fledged trial. 13. The third case is Cr.No.81/2022. The record shows that on 12.01.2022 at about 05:00 AM, 01.11.2021 the SEB police along with mediators while conducting raids at Dharmavaram village limits and reached Sathamma thalli temple, found one person holding mica bag coming towards opposite direction and on seeing the uniformed police, the said person left the mica bag in his hand and ran away. The raid party recognized him as detenue. The raid party in the presence of mediators found one polythene cover containing 10 liters of transparent white liquid and on opening it found the contents to be ID liquor emitting pungent smell. The raid party seized the contraband in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report drafted on the spot. The police registered a case against the detenue. Needles to emphasize that the detenue was not found at the spot and he was not arrested there. In this case also the involvement of detenue is a doubtful one which should be determined after a full-fledged trial. 14. The fourth case is Cr.No.221/2022. The facts in FIR would reveal that on 01.02.2022 at about 07:00 PM the SEB police while conducting raids at Dharmavaram village limits at the time of detention when reached at Ambedkar statue found one person standing with one bag and on seeing the police persons, he tried to leave the mica bag in his hand. The raid party detained the person (detenue). On questioning he revealed that the bag containing ID liquor. The raid party got opened the mica bag and found ID liquor. The raid party questioned his name and address particulars and he disclosed that his name is Bonthu Subramanyam – the detenue. The raid party detained the person (detenue). On questioning he revealed that the bag containing ID liquor. The raid party got opened the mica bag and found ID liquor. The raid party questioned his name and address particulars and he disclosed that his name is Bonthu Subramanyam – the detenue. The police booked a case under A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and arrested the detenue. 15. Thus on a close scrutiny, above cases would show that except in Cr.No.221/2022, in other three cases, the participation of the detenue is a doubtful one, as in some of those cases the detenue was not physically present and in some cases he allegedly absconded on seeing the raid party and therefore no arrest was effected at the spot. Further there are no independent mediators for the seizure and destruction of the contraband. 16. In view of the above facts, the complicity of the detenue in those cases can be decided only after the trial. It is true that the 2nd respondent who is the Detaining Authority cannot go into such merits. However, in order to test whether the acts of the detenue effect adversely to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority shall consider whether the cases in which the detenue was allegedly involved, prima facie establish his involvement even if prosecution case is unchallenged. We are constrained to hold that the Detaining Authority has not mentioned in her order as to how she is satisfied with the above cases to consider them as a ground to record detention order. So far as preventive detention is concerned, in our considered view, the 2nd respondent ought not to have taken into consideration such cases which can be taken care by general law, for ordering detention. At the outset we find preventive detention of the detenue is per se illegal and unwarranted. 17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the detention order in Rc.No.Mgl1/4/2022, dated 18.04.2022 passed by 2nd respondent / The Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada is hereby set aside and the detenue viz., Bonthu Subramanyam, S/o Rambabu, Age: 33 years, R/o Dharmavaram Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Kakinada District is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.