1 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 APHC010016082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 932 of 2025 Between: Cheemparthi Salma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Keerti Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader in the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order of attention bearing Ref.No.C1/296/M/2024, dated 20.12.2024, passed by the 2nd 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 respondent-District Collector, Y.S.R. District, and the confirmation of the said order, by the 1st respondent-State, vide G.O.Rt.No.303, dated 10.02.2025 and consequently for the release of her husband, who had been detained under the said order, in Central Prison, Kadapa. 2. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits along with the relevant documents including the order of detention, grounds of detention and the Government approval etc. 3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Y.S.R. District, on a requisition by the Superintendent of Police, F.A.C Red Sanders, Anti Smuggling Taskforce, Tirupati had passed an order of detention, dated 20.12.2024 in Ref.No.C1/296/M/2024 detaining Sri Shaik Chempati Jakeer (hereinafter referred to as „the detenue‟) under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short „the Act‟), by way of G.O.Rt.No.2225 dated 31.12.2024. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.303, dated 10.02.2025, after due consideration of the report of the Advisory Board confirming the order of the Collector and District Magistrate, dated 20.12.2024, detaining the detenue for a period of 12 months from 21.12.2024. 4. This order of detention and subsequent confirmation by the Government was on the basis of the involvement of the detenue in six cases 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 of red sander smuggling and two cases of bodily offence, booked against the detenue. The eight cases, mentioned above, are as follows: 1. Red Sanders Ant-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati, Cr.No.30/2024, dated 29.04.2024, U/Sec 379 (Theft of National Property) R/w 34 IPC., 120-B, 109 IPC, Sec 20(1) (d) (i) (a) r/w Sec 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (x), Sec 36 (a) r/w 32A and Sec 29(4) (a) (i) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. Chapadu PS, Cr.No.64/2024, Dt. 02.05.2024, U/Sec 323, 307 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Chapadu PS, Cr.No.65/2024 Dt. 02.05.2024, U/sec 363, 323, 353 r/w 34 IPC. 4. Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati, Cr.No.40/2024, dated 06.07.2024, U/Sec 303 (2) (Theft of National Property) r/w 3(5) of BNS., 49, 61(2) of BNS and Sec 20 (1) (d) (i) (a) r/w Sec 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (x), Sec 36 (a) r/w 32A of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. 5. Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati, Cr.No.50/2024, Dated 02.08.2024, U/sec 303 (2) (Theft of National Property) r/w 3(5) of BNS., 49, 61 (2) of BNS and Sec 20(1) (d) (i) (a) r/w Sec 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (x), Sec 36 (a) r/w 32A and Sec 29(4) (a) (i) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. 6. Sidhout Range, OR.No.84/2024-25 dated 24.10.2024, U/Sec 20 (i) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) & (x), U/Sec 29(4) (b) of the AP Forest (Amendment Act, 1967 U/Sec 20 (i) (d) (i) (a) (b) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, U/Sec 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 62A of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, Contravening Rule 3 of the AP Sander Wood and RS Wood Transit Rules of 1969, Contravening Rule 3 of AP RS Wood Possession Rules, 1989 U/Sec 303 (2) R/w 3(5) of BNS, 49, 61, (2) of BNS Act, 2023. 7. Sidhout Range, Or.No.85/2024-25 Dated 25.10.2024, U/Sec 20 (i) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) & (x), U/Sec 29(4) (b) of the AP Forest (Amendment Act, 1967 U/Sec 20 (i) (d) (i) (a) (b) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, U/Sec 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 62A of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, Contravening Rule 3 of the AP Sander Wood and RS Wood Transit Rules of 1969, Contravening Rule 3 of AP RS Wood Possession Rules, 1989 U/Sec 303 (2) R/w 3(5) of BNS, 49, 61, (2) of BNS Act, 2023. 8. Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati, Cr.No.86/2024, Dated 08.11.2024, U/sec 303 (2) (Theft of National Property) r/w 3(5) of BNS., 49, 61 (2) of BNS and Sec 20(1) (d) (i) (a) r/w Sec 20 (1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (x), Sec 36 (a) r/w 32A and Sec 29(4) (a) (i) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 5. The District Collector noticed that the detenue had obtained bail in Crime No.30/2024, Crime No.64/ 2024 and Crime No.65/2024 and that he was lodged in Special Sub-Jail, Tirupati, in relation to Crime No.40/2024 Crime No.50/2024 and Crime No.86 of 2024. The District Collector also observed that the detenue had moved for bail in Crime No.86 of 2024. The petitioner, after coming to a subjective satisfaction that the detenue was a dreaded notorious red sanders wood thief and smuggler and after coming to the subjective satisfaction that the cases registered against the detenue have not had a deterrent effect on the detenue, had ordered the detention of the detenue. One of the reasons set out by the District Collector was that the detenue had moved for bail in Crime No.86 of 2024 of Red Sanders Anti- Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati and there was a strong likelihood of him being granted bail. 6. The petitioner assails this order on the ground that the bail application of the detenue, in Crime No.86 of 2024 came to be rejected on 18.12.2024 itself and the question of possibility of release of the detenue was wrongly considered by the District Collector. The petitioner would also contend that while arriving at a subjective satisfaction of the necessity of detaining the detenue, the District Collector had not considered the possibility of release or the factors set out by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr.,1 (paras 10 & 11) in the following passage: 1 (2015) 16 SCC 253 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 10. There are three such factors which were restated in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India [Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88] : (SCC pp. 140-41, para 13) “13. From the catena of decisions referred to above it seems clear to us that even in the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition, to question it before a higher court. What this Court stated in Ramesh Yadav [Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, (1985) 4 SCC 232 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 514] was that ordinarily a detention order should not be passed merely to pre-empt or circumvent enlargement on bail in cases which are essentially criminal in nature and can be dealt with under the ordinary law. It seems to us well settled that even in a case where a person is in custody, if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand, resort can be had to the law of preventive detention. This seems to be quite clear from the case law discussed above and there is no need to refer to the High Court decisions to which our attention was drawn since they do not hold 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 otherwise. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there was no valid and compelling reason for passing the impugned orders of detention because the detenus were in custody.” 11. The aforesaid dicta is reiterated in subsequent judgments as well. Some of which are as under: (i) T.V. Sravanan v. State [T.V. Sravanan v. State, (2006) 2 SCC 664 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 593] , (ii) K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of T.N. [K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of T.N., (2008) 9 SCC 89 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 679] , (iii) Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur [Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, (2012) 7 SCC 181 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 956] . 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenue had been granted bail, in Crime No.30/2024 on 09.07.2024, in Crime No.64/2024 on 21.06.2024 and in Crime No.65/2024 on 21.06.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the detenue was in judicial custody, on the date of the order of detention, in Crime No.40/2024, Crime No.50/2024, OR No.84/2024-25, OR No.85/2024-25 and Crime No.86/2024. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the District Collector, while mentioning these crimes, had not dealt with the question of whether there was a possibility of release of the detenue, in these cases either on the ground that the bail applications had been filed and are 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 pending, or on the ground that special factors such as a bail being granted to other co-accused in such cases etc., had been considered. The learned counsel would contend that the aforesaid observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr., are sufficient to invalidate the order of detention and the consequent detention proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.04.2021 in W.P.No.1803 of 2021, in the case of Ceemaparthy Praveen vs. State of A.P., and on the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court, dated 03.07.2023, in W.P.No.7335 of 2023 and batch, in the case of Lakshmi Vs. Government of A.P., and Anr. 10. The District Collector, while passing the order of detention, had held in paragraph-11 of his order, as follows: “Having examined all facts and circumstances of the case and upon application of my mind and after going through the material produced before me and having being satisfied that there is every likelihood of him being granted / released on bail in the other cases also, I am satisfied to invoke the provisions under Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as the said Shaik Chempati Jakeer @ Cheemparthi Jakeer @ Simpathi Jakeer @ Chempati Jakeer @ Chimpati Jakeer @ Shaik Simpathi Jakeer @ 8 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 Jakir @ Jakeer, age:30 years, S/o. Fakruvalli @ Sabun @ Fakurvalli @ Fakoorvalli @ Fakruddin @ Subhan @ Pakruvalli, R/o Door No.2/218, near Janda Manu, Khaderpalli Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District (Aadhar No.8296 4352 0162) comes under the definition of Goonda U/s 2(g) of the Act as all is activities are dangerous to rare and pristine forest wealth and his activities are habitual in nature, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is necessary to prevent him from further indulging in illicit felling of Red Sander trees by entering into Reserve Forest, dressing them into logs, theft, illegal transportation to other States to gain huge illegal money, smuggling of Red Sander wood logs, to curtail involvement of bodily offences and abetment of the above offences.” 11. In W.P.No.1803 of 2021, the Division Bench was considering an order of preventive detention, passed while the detenue was already in judicial custody, on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was every likelihood of the detenue being granted/released on bail. This subjective satisfaction was rejected by the Division Bench in the following manner: “9. On a reading of the above, does not, in our view, show that there was any apprehension or any possibility of the detenu being released on bail. As observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Kamarunnisa‟s vs. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 128] even in a case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real 9 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. From a reading of the above, it is very much evident, the detaining authority was aware the detenu was in custody as on the date of passing of the order, but, there is no material placed before him to show that there is every likelihood of he being released on bail. Merely saying that there is every likelihood of detenu being granted/released on bail, as he was released in other cases may not satisfy the test as laid down in Champion R. Sangma’s case (1 supra) and Kamarunnisa’s case (3 supra.” 12. Another Division Bench in W.P.No.7335 of 2023 and batch had taken note of the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in the following manner: “12. The said judgment of Apex Court in Champion R. Sangma’s case (1 supra), wherein the concept of this triple test was laid down and introduced, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Cheemaparthi Parvin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others‟ case. Applying the said triple test to test the legal validity of the orders of preventive detention order impugned in the said case, the Division Bench of this Court held that there must be material placed before the detaining authority for his consideration to satisfy himself that there is a real possibility of the detenue being released from the jail on bail and that thereafter there is possibility of committing the similar nature of crimes by them in future. It is stated that on the basis of the said material, the detaining 10 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 authority shall record reasons to that effect justifying his satisfaction to pass any such order of preventive detention to uphold the validity of the same. As there are no such reasons recorded in the said case by the detaining authority, ultimately the order of preventive detention was set aside in the said case.” 13. After noticing this judgment, the Division Bench set aside the order of detention on the ground that no material had been placed before the detaining authority that there was a likelihood of the detenue being released on bail and committing further offences. 14. In the present case also no material has been placed before the detaining authority nor has the detaining authority considered the issue of probable release of the detenue on bail. 15. In such circumstances, the expression of subjective satisfaction that there was a possibility of the detenue being released on bail, is without any basis and has to be set aside. Consequently, the detention order itself would have to be set aside on this short ground. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 20.12.2024; the approval of detention order dated 31.12.2024; and confirmation of detention order dated 10.02.2025 are set aside and the detenue shall be released forthwith unless he is required in any other cases. There shall be no order as to costs. 11 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Js. 12 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.932 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.932 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 26th September, 2025 Js