ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Mrs. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. All these writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenus and to order for their release forthwith by declaring their detentions vide proceedings Nos.16, 15 and 14/PD-CELL/RCKD/2023, all dated 08.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as illegal.

3. The Detentions were approved by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt. No.389, General Administration (Special Law & Order) Department, dated 13.03.2023. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 to amend the prayer in all the writ petitions. He has filed copies of the said G.Os. Considering the said facts, the said I.A. is also allowed today.

4. Perusal of the impugned orders of detention would reveal that the detention of detenus were on the ground that they were involved in two (02) crimes i.e., i) Crime No.14 of 2023 and ii) Crime No.46 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section - 392 of IPC by Maheshwaram and Adibatla Police Stations, respectively.

5. In the grounds of detention, respondent No.2 mentioned the history of the detenus and evidence linking the detenus to the aforesaid crimes. However, as discussed above, all the aforesaid crimes were registered against the detenus for the offence punishable under Section - 392 of IPC.

6. The allegation in Crime No.14 of 2023 is that on 09.01.23 at about 17.00 hours, while complainant Smt. Kasula Lingamma was going her home from Maheshwaram Main road, the detenus came to her on motorcycle, pretended as commuters and asked her the way for Sirigiripuram Village. While she was informing the address of village, they forcibly snatched her nuptial gold chain from her neck. Similar offence occurred in Crime No.46 of 2023.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403 observed that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing.

8. In Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, the Apex Court held that the preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence, whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to.

9. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709, the Apex Court held as under:

“…Does the expression "public order” take in every kind of disorder or only some? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. 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 p