APHC010071702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 4030 OF 2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MANESHA BEGAM, D/o Shaik Baji, aged about 20 years, R/o PSN 167, 5th Lane, Putchalapalli Sundaraiah Nagar Near new RTO Office, Adavitakkellapadu, Guntur. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (SC-I) Department, Block, 1st Floor, Interim Government Complex, A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522503. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District, Guntur -522004. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District -533101. 4. The Superintendent of Police, , Guntur District, Guntur -522004. ...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 toIt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein to produce the 2 petitioner's father/detenu i.e., Shaik Baji @ Siripuram Baji, S/o Jani @ Galib, aged about 42 years, R/o 5th Lane, Putchalapalli Sundaraiah Nagar, Near new RTO Office, Adavi takkellapadu, Guntur, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.REVGNT-CSECOPDL(PRC)/11/2025- SA(C1)-COLGNT, dated 09.12.2025, and the consequential approval order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2432, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 19.12.2025, and the consequential confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.223, General Administration (SC- I) Department, dated 04.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, and consequently direct release of the detenu forthwith, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer is amended in Petition and affidavit as per the Court Order dt.17.08.2026 passed in IA No.2 of 2026. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant leave to file Reply Affidavit in WP.No.4030 of 2026 and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein to produce the petitioners father/detenu i.e., ShaikBaji @ SiripuramBaji, S/o Jani @ Galib, aged about 42 years, R/o 5th Lane, PutchalapalliSundaraiah Nagar, Near New RTO Office, Adavitakkellapadu, Guntur, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the detention order passed 3 by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.REVGNT- CSECOPDL(PRC)/11/2025-SA(C1)-COLGNT,dated 09.12.2025, and the consequential approval order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.2432, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 19.12.2025, and the consequential confirmation order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.223, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 04.02.2026, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, and consequently direct release of the detenu forthwith, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIKANTH MATHINGI Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 4030 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Srikanth Mathingi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India also challenging the order of preventive detention of the detenu namely Shaik Baji. 3. With respect to the detenu an order of preventive detention vide proceedings Rc.No: REVGNT - CSEC0PDL (PRC) /11/ 2025 – SA (C1) - COLGNT, dated 09.12.2025 was passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur District under Section 2(g) the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The same was confirmed vide G.O.Rt.No.233 General Administration (SC-I) Department dated 04.02.2026. 4. The preventive detention order was passed on the following five grounds i.e., five criminal cases: 5 i) Cr.No.435/2024 under Section 353 IPC, dated 02.06.2024 of Nallapadu Police Station. ii) Cr.No.422/2025 under Sections 329(4), 76, 115(2), 351(2), 79 r/w 3(5) of BNS, dated 19.04.2025 of Nallapadu Police Station. iii) Cr.No.630/2025 under Sections 127(2), 109(2), 115(2), r/w 3(5) of BNS, dated 16.06.2025 of Nallapadu Police Station. iv) Cr.No.270/2025 under Sections 115, 351(2), 79, 126(2) of BNS, dated 01.07.2025 of Pattabhipuram Police Station. v) Cr.No.688/2025 under Sections 39, 351(2) of BNS, dated 04.07.2025 of Nallapadu Police Station. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Crime No.630 of 2025 in ground No.3 the detenu was released on bail but that aspect has not considered by the detaining authority. He further submits that in all the remaining cases also the detenu was enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Courts. However that aspect was also not considered. He further submits that, alternatively, even if the grant of bail was not placed before the detaining authority, on the material available before the detaining authority if it was evident that the detenu was in judicial remand, still the aspect of the applicability and satisfaction of the triple test was required to be considered which has not been considered. 6 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that the bail orders have not been considered. The order of preventive detention does not reflect the same. Though, the detaining authority has mentioned about the judicial custody in the cases in different grounds but still the detaining authority has failed to consider and apply the triple test. He submits that the satisfaction has been recorded and so, the order of preventive detention is justified. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 8. It is well settled in law that if the detenue is in the judicial custody in a criminal case, the order of detention can still validly be passed taking into account that criminal case, but that is subject to the satisfaction of the triple requirements as laid down in Champion R.Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and others, in which the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:- “9. Coming to the ground on which we intend to allow this appeal, we may point out that even if the appellant is in jail in connection with some criminal case(s) there is no prohibition in law to pass the detention order. Law on this aspect is well settled and stands crystalized by plethora of judgments of this Court. However, a reading of those very judgments also clarifies that there are certain aspects which have to be borne in mind by the detaining authority and satisfaction on those aspects is to be arrived at while passing the detention order. 10. There are three such factors which were re-stated in Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India & Anr. Reported in 1991 (1) SCC 128 (pa.13). 7 “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 the case of Ramesh Yadav 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 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.Sravan v. State {(2006) 2 SCC 664} (ii) K.K.Saravana Babu v. State of T.N. {(2008) 9 SCC 89} (iii) Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur. {(2012) 7 SCC 181}” 9. The law is also well settled with respect of the consideration of the bail orders that those are relevant material and must be considered to arrive at subjective satisfaction. 10. In Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra 1the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the order of detention passed without considering the bail orders i.e., consideration ignoring the material/relevant material 1 (2012) 2 SCC 72 8 could not be sustained. Para Nos.8 to 12 in Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (supra) read as under: “8. It would be, thus, seen that the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on 14-8-2010 and the order relaxing the bail condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharangaon much before the issuance of the detention order dated 10-1-2011. However, the detention order or the grounds supplied to the detenu do not show that the detaining authority was aware of the bail order granted in favour of the detenu on 15-8- 2010. 9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction. 10. In the present case, since the order of bail dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is rendered invalid. We cannot attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority but suffice it to say that non-placing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the bail order has vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority. 11. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rekha v. State of T.N. [(2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596] decided recently held as under: (SCC p. 254, para 25) “25. In this connection, it may be noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail application of the accused was pending on the date when the detention order was passed on 8-4-2010. On the other hand, in Para 4 of the grounds of detention it is mentioned that „Thiru. Ramakrishnan is in remand in Crime No. 132 of 2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far‟. Thus, the detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused 9 was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending but in similar cases bail had been granted by the courts. We have already stated above that no details of the alleged similar cases has been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained.” 12. In Rekha [(2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596] , the detention order was held to be bad as the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the bail application of the detenu was pending on the date when the detention order was passed. In the present case, the detenu was already released on bail but the detaining authority was not aware of the fact of grant of bail to the detenu.” 11. In Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, on consideration of various pronouncements this Court held that the bail order and the conditions of the bail are relevant material to be considered to arrive at the subjective satisfaction if the order of detention is yet to be passed. There was no consideration of the bail orders in the order of detention. The impugned order of detention was set aside on that ground. Para Nos.14 to 16 in Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi (supra) read as under: “14. In Ponnada Geetha (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that when the detenu was already released on bail in a crime and when it was made basis for passing the order of preventive detention and when such order of bail was not placed before the detention authority, it vitiates the order of preventive detention. Paragraph Nos.(9) to (12) of Ponnada Geetha (supra) read as under: “9. However, as per the settled law, the very fact that the order of bail granted to the detenu in Crime No.219 of 2024 of Gopalapatnam Police Station for the offence under NDPS Act, was not placed before the 2 W.P.No.33545 of 2025 APHC decided on 22.06.2026 10 detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, by itself, is sufficient to hold that it vitiates the impugned order of detention. The legal position in this regard is fairly well settled. 10. The Division Bench of the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to elaborately deal with the said legal position in the case of Vasanthu Sumalatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2016) 1 ALT 738 (DB). At paragraph 44 of the said judgment, it is held as follows: “44. When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention, which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court. (Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar [(1984) 3 SCC 14]; Jotha Viswanadh v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. [Judgment in W.P.No.10018 of 2012, dated 29.06.2012 (APHC) (DB)]. Where the detenu is released on bail, and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court, the order of bail must be placed before the detaining authority, when the order of detention is passed, to enable him to reach a proper satisfaction. (Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 72]. If the detaining authority was unaware of the order of bail, the detention order is rendered invalid as the Court cannot attempt to assess in what manner, and to what extent, consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the order of preventive detention (Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (42 supra); Rekha (5 supra); Jotha Viswanadh (44 supra).” 11. At paragraph 42 of the said judgment, it is also held by the Division Bench of the common High Court that it is incumbent that all vital materials are placed before the detaining authority to enable him to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to the necessity for passing an order of detention, as decided in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India ((1990) 2 SCC 1 and State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini(1988 (1) SCC 287). Therefore, it is held that the bail order is a vital material for consideration 11 and if it is not considered, the satisfaction of the detaining authority would be impaired. 12. Thus, it is obvious from the analogy and the legal position decided in the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the common High Court, which is binding on this Court, that when the detenu was already released on bail in a crime and when it was made basis for passing the order of preventive detention and when the said order of bail was not placed before the detaining authority, it vitiates the impugned order of preventive detention. Therefore, in view of the law enunciated in the above judgment, as the order of bail is admittedly not placed before the 2nd respondent when he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention, the impugned order of preventive detention is vitiated and, therefore, cannot be sustained.” 15. The aforesaid is the settled position in law. The bail order and the conditions of bail are relevant material to be considered to arrive at the satisfaction if the order of detention is yet to be passed. 16. Admittedly, there is no consideration of all the bail orders in the order of detention though in five cases the bail was granted prior to passing of the order of detention and even in the order of approval and confirmation by the State there is no consideration whereas by that time in all seven cases bail (s) had been granted.” 12. In the present case, for the reasons of non-consideration of the bail orders in ground No.3; as also non-recording of the satisfaction on the fulfillment of triple test for ground Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, if the detenu was in judicial custody at the time of passing of preventive detention order, the order of preventive detention dated 09.12.2025 as also the confirmation order dated 04.02.2026 cannot be sustained. 12 13. The order of preventive detention has been passed under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. 14. In Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar vs. State of M.P and another3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that “the single vicious ground is sufficient to vitiate an order of detention.” 15. The writ petition is allowed. The order of preventive detention dated 09.12.2025 and the order of confirmation dated 04.02.2026 are set aside. 16. The detenu shall be set at liberty immediately, if he is not in detention in any other pending case. 17. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non- consideration of the relevant material the bail orders, and the bail conditions by the detaining authority, we provide that the detaining authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh order but in accordance with law and in case any order of detention is so passed afresh, the period of detention shall not exceed the statutory period in total 12 months, including the period already served under the impugned detention orders. No order as to costs. 3 (1981) 2 SCC 456 13 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ___________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR,J Dated: 09.09.2026 SRT/AG 14 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 4030/2026 Dated: 09.09.2026 SRT/AG