The main purpose of policing is to preserve the law and order in a society. To this end, prevention of crime operates at a deeper level in order to uphold societal order. However, preventive measures can be costly or considered disproportionate, so it is of utmost importance to lay bare the effectiveness and efficiency of preventive policing in any society. Preventive policing has its roots in colonial times. The colonialists, in order to force their control over the public, who they thought were the criminals, brought many pieces of legislation that dealt with preventive policing. The earliest legislation came right after the war of independence, characterized as rebellion by the British, in 1857 – the era of reconstruction of British rule in India. Some of these legislations included (a) the ‘preventive provisions’ of the CrPC (b) the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 and, (c) The Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1918. In colonial times, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) served as a tool for the British administration to maintain order and control over the population. The preventive provisions of CrPC, commonly known as 170/150 and 170/151, were used against the troublemakers in order to reform and restrict them from causing the breach of peace or public tranquility. These preventive provisions are still widely used in police stations today, whereby the purpose is to restrict the accused to good behaviour using the means of surety bonds and/or the security for good behaviour given by two witnesses. The overarching aim of preventive policing remains to nip crime in the bud. The Criminal Tribes Act was enacted in 1871. The said legislation only required the provincial government to declare a certain tribe as being involved in the non-bailable offenses. It provided a legal foundation and normalized the surveillance by police. According to Section 2 of the Criminal Tribes Act, the local government can take action against any tribe if there is a ‘reason to believe’ that they are involved in the non-bailable offenses. The report sent to the Governor General, stating the ‘reasons to believe’, gave immense power into the hands of the magistrate to exert their control over society. Therefore, it opened the floodgates of surveillance by the police and was more flexible, allowing for a broader application, as compared to the Habitual Offenders Act 1869. Postcolonial policing has adopted the policy of pick and choose. Informal policing has its roots in the colonial era; so does preventive policing. The Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act was enacted in 1918. Under Section 3 of the said act, the magistrate may invoke Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code and require the person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for his good behaviour. The Act also authorized the magistrate to restrict their mobility under Section 7. These Acts were the backbone of preventive policing in the subcontinent. It required the police officials to have a complete know-how of their jurisdictions i.e. to have intelligence regarding the livelihoods of the people suspected to be criminal tribes or habitual offenders. Unfortunately, postcolonial policing has adopted the policy of pick and choose. Informal policing has its roots in the colonial era; so does preventive policing. As hard as it is to have such surveillance mechanisms in today’s times because of the massive increase in population, the police must evolve to find innovative solutions using IT for preventive policing. One such concept has been executed in the form of establishment of the ‘Returnees from Jail Centre (RJ Centre)’ by Gujranwala Police. It takes its legal backing from Section 3 of the Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1918. The court binds the habitual offenders (HOs) to make their entries in the centre fortnightly. Consequently, the movement of HOs is restricted and can also be monitored through use of modern technologies. Moreover, the RJ Centre also has access to the Call Data Records (CDRs) of the HOs’ phone numbers. This allows them to quickly trace whether the said person has left the area and was potentially involved in the crime or not, thereby keeping them on a short leash. It is an effective method to curb recidivism and aims to reinstate the effective legislations of the colonial era in a constructive manner instead of inheriting the regressive policies that reinforce informal policing. In short, it is high time that the wheat be separated from chaff. The writer studied law and policy from LUMS and is currently serving as Assistant Superintendent of Police (Gujranwala)