APHC010693852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 35635 OF 2025 Between: 1. K REVATHI, aged 30 years, R/o. Thayaramma Street, Rayalpeta Village and Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Chief secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.522238 2. The State of A P, Rep by its Prinicipal secretary. Home Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 3. The District collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District at Chittoor. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction more particulary in the nature of writ of habeas corpus and call for records pertaining to order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No. Rev-CSECOMIS(MIS)/309/2025/MAGL4 dt. 31-10-2025 which was confirmed by the the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.no. 2453 dt. 24-12- 2 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 2025, setaside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, K Chanra Babu, S/o K Nagaraja aged about 33 years, presently detained in central prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, before this court and set him at liberty and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.7.4.2026 Vide I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.No.35365 of 2025. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of 3rd respondent proceedings Rev- CSECOMIS(MIS)/309/2025/MAGL4 dt. 31-10-2025 and consequently direct the respondents to release the detenu, K Chanra Babu S/o K Nagaraja aged about 33 years, presently detained in central prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the payer in the writ petition as follows It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction more particulary in the nature of writ of hebeas corpus and call for records pertaining to order of detention passed by by the 3''^ respondent vide Proceedings No. Rev- CSECOMIS(MIS)/309/2025/MAGL4 dt. 31-10-2025 which was confirmed by the the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.no. 2453 dt. 24-12-2025, setaside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, K Chanra Babu S/o K Nagaraja aged about 33 years, presently detained in central prison Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, before this court and set him at liberty and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. and pass 3 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 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 grant leave for filing reply affidavit in the writ petition No. 35635 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 4 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) ORDER: :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Siva Nagarjuna Sidhadapu, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned for the petitioner and Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is wife of the detenu, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of preventive detention and seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release. 3. The detenu is the husband of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District, passed an order of preventive detention against the detenu, vide REV-CSECOMIS(MIS)/309/2025-MAGL4, dated 31.10.2025, under Section 3(2) r/w 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,1986 (for short, "the Act,1986"). The detention order was passed based on three criminal cases pending against the detenu. List of those cases is as under : Sl. No Cr.No., Date & Police Station Police stations 1. Cr.No.264 of 2023 of Palamaner UPS Sec.306 IPC: Abetment of suicide Sec.511 IPC: Attempting to commit an offense Sec. 109 IPC: Punishment for abetment R/w sec.34 IPC. Joint liability 2. Cr. No. 15 of 2025 of Sec.318(4) BNS: Aggravated Cheating 5 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) Peddapanjani PS Sec.316(2) BNS: Criminal breach of trust Sec.351(2) BNS: Criminal intimidation Sec.61(2) BNS: Criminal Conspiracy Sec.111 (2) (b) BNS: Organized crime R/w 3(5) BNS Joint liability 3. Cr. No. 119 of 2025 of Peddapanjani PS Sec.318(4) BNS: Aggravated Cheating Sec.316(2) BNS: Criminal breach of trust Sec 351/2) RNG. Criminal intimidation Sec.61(2) BNS: Criminal Conspiracy Sec.111 (2) (b) BNS: Organized crime r/w 3(5) of BNS and Joint liability Sec.66-D of IT Act: Cheating by personating using a computer resource. 4. During pendency of this writ petition i.e., the Advisory Board considered the matter and submitted its report. 5. The State Government confirmed the order of preventive detention vide G.O.Rt.No.2453, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 24.12.2025. 6. In view of the subsequent development, i.e., confirmation of the detention order by the State Government, the prayer in the writ petition was amended pursuant to the orders dated 07.04.2026 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2026. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his submission that insofar as ground No.3 is concerned, it relates to Crime No.119 of 2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(2), 61(2) and 111(2)(b) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the file of Peddapanjani Police 6 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) Station, Chittoor District., He submits that, in that crime, the detenu was lodged in the Sub-Jail, Madanapalle, and the said fact was itself noticed by the detaining authority in the order of detention. He submits that bail was granted in the said crime, but the same was not considered by the detaining authority. He submits that even if the bail was granted subsequent to the passing of the order of preventive detention, the detaining authority was required to consider the applicability of the triple test before arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction for passing the order of preventive detention on the basis of the said criminal case. He placed reliance in Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya and Another1. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, while referring to the order of detention, could not dispute that the detenu was in judicial custody. He also could not point out any consideration by the detaining authority as to whether there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, if released, whether he was likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities. 9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Considering the submissions advanced and after going through the contents of the order of detention as well as the order of confirmation, we are of the view that the applicability of the triple test has not been satisfied. 1 (2015) 16 SCC 253 7 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) Though one of the tests, namely, that the detenu was lodged in jail, has been mentioned, there is no consideration as to whether there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. Such consideration is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. 11. In Champion R. Sangma (supra), the Honorable Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.9 to 13 as under : “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 crystallised by a 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 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. 8 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 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 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] . 12. In the present case, as already pointed out above, the appellant was under incarceration as he is implicated in as many as 8 cases. In fact till date he is in jail and has not been granted bail. 13. In view of the above, it was for the respondents to satisfy the Court as to whether the triple requirements, as postulated above, stand satisfied in the present case. We find that the respondents have miserably failed to fulfill this requirement.” 9 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 12. The triple test requires the detaining authority to consider and arrive at its satisfaction on the following aspects: (i) whether the detenu was already in custody; (ii) whether there was a real possibility of his being released on bail, based on reliable material placed before the authority; (iii) whether, upon such release, he would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities; and (iv) whether it was essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. 13. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the triple test laid down in Champion R. Sangma (supra) has not been considered by the detaining authority in its proper perspective. The mere reference to the fact that the detenu was in jail does not amount to consideration of the triple test. There is no consideration as to whether there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, if so, whether such release would result in his indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 14. Further, the fact that bail was granted in the said crime was also not considered by the detaining authority. Even assuming that such grant of bail was subsequent to the order of preventive detention, the material circumstances relating to the custody of the detenu and the possibility of his release were required to be considered in their proper perspective. The absence of such consideration assumes significance, as the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention cannot be founded merely on the 10 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) pendency of a criminal case when the detenu is already in judicial custody in some cases and also already released on bail on other cases. 15. Such non-consideration of a vital and relevant circumstance vitiates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. It also indicates that the detaining authority has proceeded mechanically. 16. Recently in Ponna Roja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh2, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the validity of an order of preventive detention, held that there must be a live and proximate causal connection between the incidents relied upon by the detaining authority and the necessity to detain the detenu with a view to achieving the object of preventive detention. The Co-ordinate Bench further observed that, in the absence of such causal connection, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be regarded as subjective satisfaction based on relevant considerations. 17. The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Insofar as ground No.1 is concerned, the crime relates to the year 2023 and the order of preventive detention has been passed in the year 2025 without giving due consideration to the rule of live and proximate link nor of casual connection between that criminal case and the necessity to pass the preventive detention order. 2 W.P.No.5684 of 2026 APHC decided on 14.07.2026 11 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 18. Thus, applying the principle laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in Ponna Roja (supra), we are of the view that the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is not a subjective satisfaction based on relevant and legally permissible considerations. The non-consideration of the triple test, coupled with the absence of a live and proximate causal connection between the incident and the necessity for preventive detention, vitiates the order of detention. 19. Consequently, the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained. The continued detention of the detenu pursuant to those orders, is illegal, and he is entitled to be released, if he is not in detention in any other pending criminal case. 20. The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention passed by the 3rd respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District, against the detenu vide REV-CSECOMIS(MIS)/309/2025-MAGL4, dated 31.10.2025, and the order of confirmation by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.2453, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 24.12.2025. The detenu by name Sri K.Chandra Babu, aged about 33 years, S/o K.Nagaraja, D.No.3-39, Thayaramma Colony, Rayalapeta Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, shall be released/set free forthwith, if not detained in any other pending case. 12 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Date: 12.08.2026 RPD. 13 (RNT,J & PKC,J W.P. NO.35635 OF 2025) 112 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI (ALLOWED) WRIT PETITION NO: 35635 of 2025 Date: 12.08.2026 RPD.