% APHC010247602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ,;i TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12461 OF 2025 Between: Yarra Madhavi, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 45 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o Gudia Vari Veedhi, Rajamundry, Rajamundry Urban, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamundry, East Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Yerra Ganesh, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajamundry, East Godavari District before this Hon'ble Court and he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide Ref.No.MI/513612/2025, dt. 24.02.2025, passed by the 2 was confirmed by the 1®* respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 697, dt.11.04.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and unconstitutional. nd respondent which Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: APHC0102476a2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) JDyJv-: [3529] sfci'j; TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12461/2025 Between: 1.YARRA MADHAVI, W/0. SATYANARAYANA AGED 45 YEARS. OCC HOUSEWIFE R/0 GUDIA VARI VEEDHI, RAJAMUNDRY, RAJAMUNDRYURBAN, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India directing the 4th respondent to produce Yerra Ganesh, who is now detained in Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District before this Hon'ble Court and he 2 may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide Ref.No.MI/513612/2025, dt. 24.02.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 697, dt.11.04.2025 General Administration (Law and Order) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KADIYAM NEELAKANTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader in the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents. The petitioner has moved the present writ petition seeking release of 2. her son, against whom a preventive detention order, vide Ref.No.M1/513612/2025, dated 24.02.2025, had been passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders And Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity “the Act”). 3. The District Collector had passed the order of detention on 24.02.2025 vide Ref.No.Ml/513612/2025. The Advisory Board reviewed the said order on 28.03.2025, and gave an opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.697 General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 11.04.2025 fixing the period of detention as Twelve (12) months from 25.02.2025. The said order of detention has been passed on the ground that 15 4. cases have been registered against the detenu and that the detenu, on account of his involvement in these crimes, answers the description ■ of "Goonda" set out in Section 2(g) of the Act. The District Collector has also opined that there is every possibility of the detenu repeating his actions and causing disturbance to the public order and that it would be appropriate detain the detenu to ensure that further offences to are not committed. 5. This order is challenged, by the petitioner, on the ground that, the crimes 1 to 7 and 10, enumerated in the order of the detention, had been compromised, while he had been given anticipatory bail or bail in all the other complaints except Crime No.2 of 2025 which is listed at No. 15 in the grounds of detention. The petitioner contends that the order of detention to the grant of bail in all these cases nor does the order of detention set out does not refer any consideration of the detaining authority, as to the likelihood of the detenu being released. The petitioner, more specifically would contend that. a duty was cast on the detaining authority to go into the question of whether there was likelihood of release of the detenu in these cases, as that is the primary requirement in any order of detention passed against judicial custody. The petitioner would rely upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.09.2025 in W.P.No.932 of 2025 Cheemparthi Salma v. The State of AP and others. a person, who is in in case of 6. The learned Government Pleader, relying upon the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority would contend that the long list of cases would clearly shows the proclivity of the detenu to engage in crime and that these crimes are of serious nature involving offences under NDPS Act violence being perpetrated as well as various people. Learned Government Pleader on 5 f would contend that the detenu is fully aware of the fact that he was in custody only in relation to one case, and consequently, cannot complain against lack of those facts being missed in the order of detention. This Court, in W.P.No.932 of 2025, while considering a similar situation 7. had held that the order of detention would not be valid. This Court, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 8. case of Champion R.Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr., as well as a 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., had held that in case of any preventive detention orders being passed against a person in prison, there is a necessity for the detaining authority to go into the question of whether there was an immanent possibility of release of that person from jail. It is only upon such a subjective satisfaction being arrived that the detaining authority could pass an order of preventive detention to stop the said person’s release from jail and for carrying on notorious activities which would affect the public order. In the present case, the detaining authority did not go into the said question and in fact even did not record that the detenu had obtained bail in all the pending cases, except in case of Crime No.2 of 2025 registered with II Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajahmundry. In the absence of such subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, about the possibility of release of the 9. ;■ A' 6 detenu, being recorded person, who is already in jail, cannot be valid any order of preventive detention passed against a 10. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition i of detention IS allowed setting aside the order vide Ref.No.M1/513612/2025. respondents are directed to forthwith release the detenu unless he i dated 24.02.2025, The IS required in any case. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District. L 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamundry, East Godavari District. [PY SpEEO 1^05,13 5. One CC to Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara 6. Two CCs to Addl. Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2025 ORDER WP.NO. 12461 OF 2025 oV 5 0! OCT 2025 m .9 Currant i»«oiion ^ ^fSPATCW^^ ★ ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS