Preventive detention cannot replace ordinary criminal law where allegations show only law and order issues, not public order.

Preventive detention cannot be sustained where the alleged conduct, though criminal, has only a law and order impact and does not create a direct threat to public order affecting the community at large. Cheating and breach-related allegations in FIRs may justify ordinary criminal prosecution, but they do not cross the statutory threshold for public-order detention without further material. Detention also cannot be based merely on the detenu's obtaining bail, because ordinary criminal-law remedies, including challenge to or cancellation of bail, remain available. On these principles, the detention was quashed as an impermissible substitute for the normal criminal process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order could be sustained when the alleged acts disclosed, at the highest, a law and order problem and not a public order problem; (ii) Whether preventive detention could be justified merely because the detenu had obtained bail in the criminal cases, when ordinary criminal law offered adequate remedies.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order could be sustained when the alleged acts disclosed, at the highest, a law and order problem and not a public order problem.

Analysis: The detention was made under the preventive detention statute, which permits detention only when the person's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Public order, as used in the Act, required harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a section thereof. The alleged conduct consisted of cheating and breach-related offences disclosed in FIRs under the Penal Code. Such conduct may justify ordinary criminal action, but it does not, without more, cross the threshold from law and order into public order. The materials showed no direct and inevitable impact on the community at large.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained on the ground of public order and the issue is answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether preventive detention could be justified merely because the detenu had obtained bail in the criminal cases, when ordinary criminal law offered adequate remedies.

Analysis: The real basis for detention was the detenu's success in obtaining anticipatory bail or bail in the pending criminal cases. The availability of ordinary legal remedies, including challenge to bail and cancellation of bail, meant that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for the normal criminal process. Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must be confined within narrow constitutional limits under Articles 21 and 22. On these facts, the apprehended repetition of offences did not furnish a valid foundation for detention.

Conclusion: Detention could not be justified merely on the ground of bail and the issue is answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was quashed because the case disclosed, at most, a matter for ordinary criminal law and not a threat to public order warranting detention without trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be sustained where the alleged conduct, though criminal, amounts only to a law and order issue and the ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies, including proceedings concerning bail.

---