ORDER : (R. DEVDAS, J.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the detention order dated 12.12.2024 and the extension of the period of detention by order dated 05.11.2024. 2. The third respondent Superintendent of Police, Bagalkot submitted a report on 04.11.2024 to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bagalkot stating the grounds for preventive detention of the petitioner under the provisions of The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short ‘GOONDA Act’). The second respondent passed an order of detention on 05.11.2024 ordering arrest and detention of the petitioner. Further, the first respondent State Government passed an order on 12.12.2024 extending the period of detention for a period of one year commencing from 05.11.2024. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 100146/2025 raising a challenge to the impugned orders. However, what was contended before this Court was that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPHC No. 100003/2014 and connected matters, which were decided on 04.09.2014 had opined that u/s 3(2) proviso of the GOONDA Act, the maximum period for detention can only be for three months; if certain persons have been given the benefit of the proposition that detention orders cannot be beyond three months, the others who are similarly situated cannot be denied the benefit; the petitioner’s wife has filed a representation, but the representation has not been considered. However, the Co-ordinate Bench accepted the submission made on behalf of the respondent State Government and declined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. Further, since the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to address his arguments, based on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and Others , [ (2023) 9 SCC 587 ] , the Co-ordinate Bench held that there were no pleadings in the writ petition to sustain the arguments. Nevertheless, at the request made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, subject to the condition that the three grounds raised in the earlier writ petition cannot be raised once again. 4. Nevertheless, at the request made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, subject to the condition that the three grounds raised in the earlier writ petition cannot be raised once again. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Yadrami, appearing for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Ameena Begum (supra) and submitted that the impugned detention order cannot be sustained, since the impugned detention order does not fulfil the requirements, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. It is contended that the detaining authority received the report from the Superintendent of Police on 04.11.2024 and without independently considering the recommendation and satisfying himself of the existence of tenable grounds for detention and considering material which have no rational or probative value or that the material do not disclose live and proximate link between the past conduct of the petitioner and the imperative need to detain the petitioner, the authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Similarly, the first respondent State Government has also passed the impugned order on 12.12.2024, extending the period of detention without satisfying itself of the need to extend the period, without analyzing the material placed before it. 5. The learned senior counsel submitted that in Ameena Begum (supra), the Apex Court has directed that the Constitutional Courts, while considering a challenge raised to a detention order is required to consider whether the alleged acts of commission for which the detenue has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’ and secondly, whether all relevant circumstances were considered or whether extraneous factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that detenue is a habitual offender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained. It is submitted that the Court is directed to distinguish between disturbances related to ‘law and order’ and disturbances caused to ‘public order’. It was held that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder and the Apex Court has culled out catena of judgments which bring out the difference between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’. It was held that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder and the Apex Court has culled out catena of judgments which bring out the difference between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’. Learned senior counsel contended that after analyzing several judgments, it was held that for an act to qualify as a disturbance of 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, is: “…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?” 6. Learned senior counsel would therefore submit that the detaining authority should have considered the fact that out of 22 cases registered against the petitioner, the petitioner is acquitted in three cases, ‘B’ summary report is filed in one case and in another case the parties compromised and the case was closed. Eight cases were registered u/Ss 107 or 108 of Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be considered as crimes and the fact that the bonds executed by the petitioner in those matters have not been violated by the petitioner. 7. During the course of the arguments, learned senior counsel submitted that in one of the cases which was registered in the year 2016 at Mudhol Police Station in Case No. 32/2016, the petitioner is acquitted by order dated 21.06.2025. 8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the detaining authority was also required to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was granted bail in all the pending matters and there is no allegation of the petitioner violating conditions of bail. In this regard the learned senior counsel would place reliance on Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs. Union of India & Others which was decided on 06.03.2025. It was pointed out that the Apex Court noticed the earlier decisions in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. In this regard the learned senior counsel would place reliance on Joyi Kitty Joseph Vs. Union of India & Others which was decided on 06.03.2025. It was pointed out that the Apex Court noticed the earlier decisions in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar , [ (1984) 3 SCC 14 ] where it was held that care should be taken that the liberty of the person is not jeopardized unless his case falls squarely within the hard law of preventive detention and not to be used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of keeping a man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it may be possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the material available is such as would satisfy the requirements of the legal provisions authorizing such detention. It was held that when a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court. 9. Attention of this Court was also drawn to another recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanya M Vs. State of Kerala and others which was decided on 06.06.2025. It was pointed out from the said decision that the Apex Court has opined that it has no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained, since the detention order does not ascribe any reason as to how the actions of the detenue are against the public order. Since it was opined by the detaining authority that the detenue had violated bail conditions, the Apex Court held that such violation of bail conditions may be ground enough for the State to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned detention order complies with all the requirements as directed in Ameena Begum (supra). It is submitted that the detaining authority has listed out all the 22 cases which were registered against the petitioner. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned detention order complies with all the requirements as directed in Ameena Begum (supra). It is submitted that the detaining authority has listed out all the 22 cases which were registered against the petitioner. The detaining authority has considered the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in some cases, in one of the case the matter was compromised and in another case a ‘B’ summary report was filed. The detaining authority has also taken note of the fact that bail have been granted to the petitioner in all the other pending cases. However the detaining authority has clearly noticed the fact that despite crimes being registered against the petitioner continuously from the year 2009 and he obtaining bail in all the pending matters, nevertheless, the petitioner has continued with illegal activities and he has continued hooligan behaviour, instilling fear in the mind of the public. The detaining authority has noticed the recent past activity of the petitioner wherein he is involved in impersonation and extorted huge sums of money from two pontiffs and a general manager of a cement factory. This shows the live and proximate link between the immediate past conduct of the petitioner and the imperative need to detain him under preventive law. The detaining authority has furnished sufficient reason for apprehension and detention of the petitioner since the immediate past activities of the petitioner, in the form of extortion from various persons have instilled fear in the mind of the public. 11. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.) , [ (2004) 7 SCC 467 ] the Apex Court has held that the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. It was noticed in that case that the detenue was a history sheeter against whom more than 30 cases were registered, he demanded money from whosoever purchased land in the area concerned and threatened to kill if demands were not met. Such incidents clearly substantiated the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to how the acts of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 12. Learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Such incidents clearly substantiated the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to how the acts of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 12. Learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on Pesala Nookaraju Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others , [ (2023) 14 SCC 641 ] , where it was held that the power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. 13. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in Joyi Kitty Joseph the Apex Court was concerned with the allegations against the detenue who was involved in smuggling activities. The Apex Court found that the detenue was in judicial custody till 19.03.2024 and an extension was subsequently granted till 01.04.2024 and thereafter till 15.04.2024. The bail application filed by the detenue was considered and the detenue was released on 16.04.2024 on certain conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution of the involvement of the detenue in similar type of smuggling activity was reckoned by the jurisdictional magistrate while granting bail and imposing conditions to prevent the detenue from engaging in such smuggling activities. The Apex Court found that nothing is stated by the detaining authority as to why the bail conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenue from engaging in further activities of smuggling, which was the specific ground on which the conditions were imposed while granting bail. It was under those circumstances the Apex Court held that the detaining authority ought to have examined whether the bail conditions were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities, which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. It was under those circumstances the Apex Court held that the detaining authority ought to have examined whether the bail conditions were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities, which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, the Apex Court interfered with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence: the allegations which formed the basis of the detention order. This does not mean that the Apex Court has laid down a law that the detaining authority is required to consider the fact that bail has been granted to the detenue in all the pending cases or that since bail has been granted to the detenue, such cases should not be taken into consideration while passing a detention order. 14. On the other hand, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt. Nandini vs. The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others , [WPHC No.55/2024 dated 12.07.2024] considered similar such contentions and held as follows: g) The last contention of the Petitioner’s counsel that in all the pending matters, the detenue has been admitted to bail subject to complying with conditions and there is no complaint of violation of bail conditions and therefore the Detention Order is not explicable, appears to be too farfetched an argument. As already mentioned above, the criminal antecedents of the detenue abound on record. The number of criminal cases, the nature of criminality, the kind of victims chosen by the detenue all would leave no reasonable mind unbaffled. Admittedly he is a Rowdy Sheeter. None other than his first was kidnapped/abducted by him. He is facing a plethora of criminal cases, is not in dispute. Due to mounting arrears, the investigation/trial/disposal of criminal cases would take years if not decades. Such has become the Administration of Criminal Justice. Less said is better. Ordinarily, for offences for which prescribed punishment is not death, nor life imprisonment, offenders secure bail by raising the slogan “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” vide STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. BALCHAND @ BALIAY, AIR 1977 SC 2447 . Social conditions have undergone catastrophic change and people are living in different times. Less said is better. Ordinarily, for offences for which prescribed punishment is not death, nor life imprisonment, offenders secure bail by raising the slogan “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” vide STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. BALCHAND @ BALIAY, AIR 1977 SC 2447 . Social conditions have undergone catastrophic change and people are living in different times. The principles & maxims of law are not immutable; they have elements of relativity; their relevance is ‘time & circumstance bound’. Therefore, the same cannot be invoked mindlessly for granting reprieve disregarding its consequences on the larger interest of the community. 15. Heard learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Yadrami for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate Sri G.K. Hiregoudar for the respondent-State and its authorities and perused the petition papers. 16. From the conspectus of arguments submitted at the bar, we are required to consider whether the impugned detention order is in conformity with the yardsticks laid down by the Apex Court in Ameena Begum (supra); whether the alleged acts of commission for which the detenue has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’; whether the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the detaining authority has not taken into consideration bail granted by the jurisdictional Magistrates / competent Court in the pending cases registered against the detenue? 17. In Pesala Nookaraju (supra), while answering the question as to whether the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to public order, it was held that just because four cases have been registered against the detenue under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. If the detention is on the ground that the detenue is indulging in manufacture or transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, because the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Prohibition Act. But it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order if the liquor sold by the detenue is dangerous to public health; it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For that purpose the detaining authority was required to be satisfied on material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the detenue is liquor which is dangerous to public health. For that purpose the detaining authority was required to be satisfied on material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the detenue is liquor which is dangerous to public health. The Apex Court, under such circumstances held that the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor by the detenue and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to their health. Such statement is an expression of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Apex Court was satisfied that the detaining authority not only recorded its satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the detenue-appellant from indulging further in such activities and the satisfaction was drawn on the basis of credible material available on record. It was also held that it is well settled that whether the material was sufficient or not is not for the Courts to decide by applying the objective basis as it is matter of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 18. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court, in Pesala Nookaraju (supra) and Ameena Begum (supra), when we look into the impugned detention order, we find that the detaining authority has recorded the fact that the detenue is in the habit of committing offences which commenced from the year 2009 and on 12.06.2017 a Rowdysheet and M.O.B. card is opened against the detenue. The detenue is involved in criminal cases continuously for the last 4-5 years. What is noticeable is that the detenue is involved in three cases of extortion in the year 2021 to 2024. In Crime No. 37/2021 registered at Lokapur Police Station, the detenue is alleged to have impersonated a personal secretary of a Minister and attempted extortion. In Crime No. 32/2021 registered at Bagalkot Police Station, the detenue once again impersonated a private secretary of another Minister and sought to extort money from a General Manager of a cement industry. In Crime No. 33/2024 registered at Bagalkot CEN Police Station, the detenue extorted Rs.1 crore from a pontiff of a Mutt. In Crime No. 32/2021 registered at Bagalkot Police Station, the detenue once again impersonated a private secretary of another Minister and sought to extort money from a General Manager of a cement industry. In Crime No. 33/2024 registered at Bagalkot CEN Police Station, the detenue extorted Rs.1 crore from a pontiff of a Mutt. The detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction from the material available, that despite the detenue being released on bail, instead of developing good behavior, he engaged in various illegal activities and even though legal action was taken against him, he continued his hooligan behavior without any fear. It is clear that the detenue is not one who will abide by the law and he continues with unlawful or illegal activities like extortion, cheating, rioting, threatening and due to such activities, common people are highly affected. Activities such as, extortion of businessmen and pontiffs has spread fear in the mind of the public. 19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the detaining authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction, applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on extraneous material. The detaining authority has acted independently and the satisfaction rests on material which have rational, probative value and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matter, as per the statutory mandate. There exists live and proximate link between the immediate past conduct of the detenue and therefore the detaining authority is right in coming to a conclusion that there is an imperative need to detain the detenue under the preventive law. 20. Insofar as the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the detaining authority was required to take into consideration bail granted by the competent Criminal Court in all the pending matters, this Court is in respectful agreement of the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench in Smt. Nandini (supra). The relevant paragraphs have already been extracted hereinabove. The detaining authority has not only taken into consideration the bail granted to the detenue, but it has also expressed its anguish that despite bail being granted to the detenue, it has not stopped the detenue from committing heinous offences such as extortion which has created fear in the minds of the public. 21. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned detention order cannot be faulted. 21. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned detention order cannot be faulted. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.