Statement — There has been a spurt of robbery and house-breaking incidents in one locality during the past fortnight.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Local police personnel should start patrolling the locality at regular intervals.\nII. Residents should be asked by police not to leave their houses during the night.

Introduction / Context:
A sudden rise in robberies requires proportionate, constitutional responses that deter offenders without unreasonably burdening citizens. We compare preventive policing (I) with a de-facto curfew request to residents (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Incidents are concentrated in a locality and time-window.
• I: Regular police patrols.
• II: Advise residents not to leave homes at night.

Concept / Approach:
Effective courses of action should be feasible, rights-respecting, and targeted at offenders. Patrols increase police visibility, reduce response time, and deter crime. Asking residents to stay indoors shifts burden to victims, harms livelihoods, and is impractical and unenforceable as a general rule.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Map causes: offender opportunity at low-visibility hours.2) Apply I: patrols, checkpoints, lighting audits, community watch → immediate deterrence.3) Reject II: overbroad, disrupts normal life, not a proportionate measure.

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard policing doctrine favors hotspot patrols and intelligence-led operations over blanket stay-home advisories.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both: elevate a burdensome measure. Neither: ignores a valid policing response in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Blaming victims or constraining their movement rather than constraining offenders.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.