ORDER : Per Ananda Sen, J. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby an order under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, and order of preventive detention has been passed against the petitioner for three months till 03.12.2024. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.09.2024, whereby the order passed under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act dated 04.09.2024 has been confirmed. By way of amendment, the order dated 21.10.2024 of the Government of Jharkhand has been challenged whereby the Government of Jharkhand has confirmed the order after consultation with the Advisory Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no materials to detain the petitioner under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. He submitted that the preventive detention is bad and is without application of mind. He argued that mere pendency of criminal cases, that too involving offence which are not heinous in nature, cannot be a ground to detain this petitioner. As per the petitioner, he is not an anti-social element as defined under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. Taking a plea of maintenance of law and order or on the ground of controlling criminal activities or illegal activities, a person cannot be detained. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents contended that there are sufficient number of cases pending against the petitioner and the cases pending against the petitioner are under Chapter XVI and Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, thus, this petitioner has been rightly detained in terms of Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. He argued that since the Advisory Board has given opinion that there are sufficient grounds for detention of the petitioner, petitioner’s detention was accordingly confirmed. He submitted that the order was passed after application of mind. It has also been mentioned that there are 9 (nine) criminal cases pending against the petitioner and two Station Diary Entries were made and all the offences are heinous in nature. He submitted that the order was passed after application of mind. It has also been mentioned that there are 9 (nine) criminal cases pending against the petitioner and two Station Diary Entries were made and all the offences are heinous in nature. It is submitted by the State-respondents that the petitioner is a threat to the society as also to the public order and if the petitioner comes out of jail, he will be a threat to common person. Thus, the order of detention needs to be confirmed. 4. After considering the submissions and arguments of the parties and from perusal of the records, it transpired that the order of detention has been passed in terms of Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. This is a case of preventive detention. 5. Right to life and personal liberty is placed on the highest pedestal by our Constitution, which the Courts have also recognised. Any deprivation of the aforesaid right must strictly be in accordance with a law and the Court has to be satisfied that the authority has acted in accordance with law while depriving a person of his right to life and personal liberty. 6. Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees a person, protection of his liberty as it provides that any person, who is arrested, shall not be detained in custody without being informed the grounds of his arrest and shall not be denied right to consultation or defend himself through a legal practitioner. Further, as per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, a person so arrested and detained, shall be produced before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest and he cannot be detained beyond the said period without the authority of the Magistrate. This protection granted under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India has an exception. The exception lies under Article 22(3) of the Constitution, which provides that Articles 22(1) and 22(2) are not applicable to a person, who is arrested or detained under any law, providing for preventive detention. This sub-Article also provides that Sub Articles (1) and (2) are not applicable to any person, who is an enemy alien. 7. Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act gives power to the State Government to detain certain persons. This sub-Article also provides that Sub Articles (1) and (2) are not applicable to any person, who is an enemy alien. 7. Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act gives power to the State Government to detain certain persons. The Government can detain a person with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, which is prejudicial to maintaining public order and there is reason to fear that his anti-social activities cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest. There has to be satisfaction on the part of the State that the person, who is supposed to be detained is an anti-social element and his act is prejudicial in maintaining public order and if he is not detained, his anti-social activities cannot be prevented. It is necessary to quote Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, which reads as under: - “12. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- The State Government may.-(1) If satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained.” 8. The phrase “anti-social element” has been defined under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 at Section 2(d) thereof. Section 2(d) of the Act reads as under: - “2. The phrase “anti-social element” has been defined under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 at Section 2(d) thereof. Section 2(d) of the Act reads as under: - “2. Definition.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- 2(a) … 2(b) … 2(c) … 2(d) “Anti-social Elements” means a person who- 2d(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code: or 2d(ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or 2d(iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities; or 2d(iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or 2d(v) who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959.” 9. As per the aforesaid definition, a person, who is sought to be detained, must commit or attempt to commit or abets commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang or that person habitually commits and abets offences under the Suppression of Immoral Trafficking of Women and Girls Act, 1956. Further a person, who by his words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language group or castes or communities, will also be termed as “anti-social Element”. 10. In the case of Haradhan Saha versus State of West Bengal reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of preventive detention is to prevent the greater evil of elements imperiling the security and safety of a State, and the welfare of the Nation. 11. Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 provides for detention of a person, if in any manner he is prejudicial to maintenance of public order. There is a difference between “public order” and “law and order”. 11. Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 provides for detention of a person, if in any manner he is prejudicial to maintenance of public order. There is a difference between “public order” and “law and order”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ameena Begum versus State of Telangana and Others reported in (2023) 9 SCC 587 , while referring to various earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has distinguished between disturbances relatable to law and order and disturbances caused to public order. At paragraph 37 to 40 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has distinguished between the phrases “public order” and “law and order”. Paragraphs 37 to 40 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - “37. We may refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, where the difference between “law and order” and “public order” was lucidly expressed by Hon’ble M. Hidayatullah, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) in the following words: (SCR pp. 745-46, paras 54-55) “54. … Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. … 55. It will thus appear that just as “public order” in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three concentric circles. … 55. It will thus appear that just as “public order” in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”, “law and order” also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order”. One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.”(emphasis supplied) 38. For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order, the specific activity must have an impact on the broader community or the general public, evoking feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. Not every case of a general disturbance to public tranquility affects the public order and the question to be asked, as articulated by Hon’ble M. Hidayatullah, C.J. in Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., is this: (SCC p. 100, para 3) “3. … Does it [the offending act] lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?” 39. In Arun Ghosh case, the petitioning detenu was detained by an order of a District Magistrate since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing and molesting young girls and assaults on individuals of a locality. While holding that the conduct of the petitioning detenu could be reprehensible, it was further held that it (read: the offending act) “does not add up to the situation where it may be said that the community at large was being disturbed or in other words there was a breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of public order. (Arun Ghosh case, SCC p. 101, para 5)” 40. In the process of quashing the impugned order, the Hidayatullah, C.J. while referring to the decision in Ram Manohar Lohia also ruled: (Arun Ghosh case, SCC pp. 99-100, para 3) “3. … Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. (Arun Ghosh case, SCC p. 101, para 5)” 40. In the process of quashing the impugned order, the Hidayatullah, C.J. while referring to the decision in Ram Manohar Lohia also ruled: (Arun Ghosh case, SCC pp. 99-100, para 3) “3. … Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. … It is always a question of degree of the harm and its effect upon the community. … This question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another.” 12. Considering these provisions of law and settled principles, I have gone through the order of detention. 13. In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that because of activities of the petitioner, like offences related to women, Arms Act and manufacture, storage and selling of illegal foreign liquor, there is a sense of fear and threat amongst the local people and it has become the passion of the petitioner of creating threat amongst the local people. Due to the activity of the petitioner, entire locality and the area lives under fear. To inspire confidence amongst the people of the locality and to maintain peace, it is necessary to detain the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that if the petitioner is kept in custody, the crime rate of the area will decrease. 14. In the impugned order, there is reference of 9 (nine) criminal cases and 2 (two) Station Diary Entries. Out of these 9 (nine) criminal cases, Chakulia Police Station Case No.28 of 2017 is under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which admittedly does not fall either under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Out of these 9 (nine) criminal cases, Chakulia Police Station Case No.28 of 2017 is under Sections 143, 147, 149, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which admittedly does not fall either under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the aforesaid cases, I find that 4 (four) cases being Chakulia Police Station Case No.25 of 2020, Chakulia Police Station Case No.60 of 2020, Chakulia Police Station Case No. 47 of 2022 and Chakulia Police Station Case No.30 of 2024 relates to offences under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act and its connected offences under the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against this petitioner in these cases are that he deals and transports illegal foreign liquor. In Mosaboni Police Station Case No.35 of 2020, the allegation against this petitioner is that on the pretext of marriage, he has entered into sexual relationship with a girl. In Chakulia Police Station Case No.60 of 2020, the allegation against this petitioner is when on the allegation that the petitioner is transporting illegal brewed liquor, the department chased the petitioner, then he drove the vehicle rashly, which resulted in death of a person. This is a case of rash driving. These are sum and substance of the criminal cases and allegations against this petitioner. 15. All these criminal cases, which have been lodged against the petitioner, relate to maintenance of law and order. There may be a law and order problem because of the acts of the petitioner, but, there is nothing in the entire order to suggest that there is disturbance of public order. Merely, in the order some paragraphs and few lines have been mentioned that the entire locality and the area is terrified because of the petitioner and during the detention of the petitioner, crime rate of the area has decreased, does not serve the purpose. These superfluous statements are not backed up by any supporting data or any other material. What is the negative impact of the petitioner in the entire area, locality or society has also not been mentioned in the impugned order. Getting implicated in a few criminal acts will not automatically mean that the petitioner is a threat to “public order”. The State cannot brand the petitioner based on few criminal cases that he is a disturbing element in maintenance of “public order”. Getting implicated in a few criminal acts will not automatically mean that the petitioner is a threat to “public order”. The State cannot brand the petitioner based on few criminal cases that he is a disturbing element in maintenance of “public order”. From the impugned order, I find that the State has confused in making distinction between “public order” and “law and order”. 16. The criminal cases, which are not related to Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, relates to separate and stray instances affecting private individuals. These have got nothing to do with disturbance of “public order”. So far as the reference of cases, which relates to Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, i.e., transporting, storage and manufacturing of illegal foreign liquor is concerned, I find that in Chakulia Police Station Case No.25 of 2020 the allegation against this petitioner is that he was going in a motorcycle when the police confronted them. This petitioner left the motorcycle and managed to flee and he escaped. Police seized the motorcycle and from the motorcycle, in a bag illegal foreign liquor was recovered. In Chakulia Police Station Case No.60 of 2020, it is stated that the petitioner, while trying to flee, as he was chased by the police, caused motor accident, resulting in death of a person. In Dhalbhumgarh Police Station Case No.47 of 2022, petitioner was caught red handed with illegal foreign liquor. In Chakulia Police Station Case No.30 of 2024, it has been alleged that the petitioner is involved in making illegal foreign liquor and had kept, bottles, stickers of liquors of different brands and was using the same. These all allegations also cannot be said to attract breach of public order. 17. There are two Station Diary Entries made against the petitioner, which does not reflect commission of any offence. They are vague and only mentions that because of this petitioner, there is sense of fear in the locality. Be it noted that these Station Diary Entries are dated 31.03.2024 and 05.04.2024. There cannot be more vague an entry than this. 18. The reference of the cases, which have been mentioned above, will also not come within the purview of the definition of the act to declare the petitioner an “anti-social element” in terms of Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. There cannot be more vague an entry than this. 18. The reference of the cases, which have been mentioned above, will also not come within the purview of the definition of the act to declare the petitioner an “anti-social element” in terms of Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 provides for certain type of offences and the person should be habituated in committing such offences. The word “habituated” would mean committing the offence repeatedly in quick succession and there should be continuity in committing the offences together with similar and repeated acts. Solitary instances and incidents committed after a long time gap cannot make the person as habitual in committing “anti-social activities”. In this case, we find that 9 (nine) cases, which have been referred to is from the period 2017 to 2024. In the year 2024 there is only one case, i.e., Chakulia Police Station Case No.30 of 2024, lodged on 16.04.2024, and rest two instances referred to by the State in the impugned order are only Station Diary Entries in 2024, which had not culminated in any criminal proceeding or First Information Report. These two entries are mere perception of the police authority. Before that, the case in immediate proximity, which has been lodged against the petitioner, was lodged on 02.09.2022, that too under Section 272, 273, 290, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. 19. As per the State-respondents, themselves, the petitioner has committed one offence in September 2022 and thereafter the next offence, which was committed by him, was in April 2024, i.e. after nearly 1 ½ years. Before 02.09.2022, the offence, which was committed by the petitioner was on 03.07.2021 and prior to that in February, 2020; April, 2020 and October, 2020. The immediate proximity of a criminal case of the petitioner vis-à-vis the impugned order of detention, is Chakulia Police Station Case No.30 of 2024, which is in respect of manufacturing of illegal foreign liquor, wheras the rest of the activities are of at least two years prior to the impugned order. Such old cases of 2017 to 2022 cannot also be a ground to issue a detention order in the month of September, 2024, when admittedly the State did not chose to pass any order of preventive detention in 2021-22. Such old cases of 2017 to 2022 cannot also be a ground to issue a detention order in the month of September, 2024, when admittedly the State did not chose to pass any order of preventive detention in 2021-22. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is habitually committing offence to bring him within the definition of “anti-social element” as per the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. 20. It is also necessary to note that in Chakulia Police Station Case No.28 of 2017, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. In Chakulia Police Station Case No.51 of 2019 also, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. In Police Station Case No.26 of 2021, he is on anticipatory bail. In Chakulia Police Station Case No.25 of 2020 and Chakulia Police Station Case No.60 of 2020 also he is on bail. In Mosaboni Police Station Case No.35 of 2020, petitioner has been acquitted. In Chakulia Police Station also he is on bail. It is made clear that the State is not remediless inasmuch as if any person commits an offence when he is on bail, the State should move appropriate Court for cancellation of his bail. Preventive detention is not an appropriate measure/recourse of law. 21. In view of the findings above, I am of the opinion that the State has failed to make out a case of breach of “public order” in the instant case, rather at best the material relates to maintenance of “law and order” and not “public order”. Further, in terms of Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, petitioner cannot be said to be an “anti-social element” committing offences habitually. 22. In view of what has been held above, the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the subsequent orders dated 13.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 are also set aside. 23. This Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.