1 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) APHC010213512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10646 OF 2026 Between: 1. Varalakshmi,, W/o Raj, Aged 53 years, R/o, 1, Ambedkar Nagar, 6th Street, Madhavaram Village, Tiruvalluru District, Tamilnadu State - 600060. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522237. 2. The Principal Secretary to GovernmentFAC, Reven te(Exeise-II) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi at Velagapudi, Guntur District - 522237. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Tirupati, Tirupati District -517501. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Tirupati District- 517501. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District - 516002. ...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 2 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) pleased topleased 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 5th respondent to produce Babu Backiaraj, S/o. Babu, who is now detaned in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honble Court and he may be ordered o be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide orders passed in G.O. t.No.1616, dt. 22.12.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No. 439, 18.03.2026 Revenue (Excise-II) D pt., as illegal and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 3 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) ORDER: :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is sister 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 her release. 3. An order of preventive detention was passed against the detenu by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.1616, Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 22.12.2025, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, "the PIT NDPS Act"). The detention order was passed based on three (03) criminal cases pending against the detenu. List of those cases is as under : - Sl. No Cr.No., Sec of law & Name of the Police Station Ganja Seized (in Kg‟s Stage of the case (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Cr.No.05/2025 U/s.20(b)(ii), 20(b)(ii) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Tiruchanuru PS. 4.750 Kg Pending Trial 2. Cr.No.332/2025 U/s.20(b)(i), 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Tiruchanuru PS. 5.000 Kg Under investigation 3. Cr.No.93/2025, U/s.8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985 of Proh. & Excise Station, Tirupati Rural. 0.650 Kg Under investigation 4 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) 4. During pendency of this writ petition i.e., the Advisory Board considered the matter and submitted its report on 24.02.2026. 5. The State Government confirmed the order of preventive detention vide G.O.Rt.No.439, Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 18.03.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though bail orders were passed in the aforesaid three cases, the sponsoring authority did not place the said bail orders before the detaining authority. He submits that in the first case, the bail was granted on 07.02.2025, in the second case, the bail was granted on 14.08.2025 and in the third case, the bail was granted on 12.08.2025. He submits that the copy of the bail orders has been brought on record. He submits that the failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place such vital information relating to the detenu before the detaining authority vitiates the entire order of preventive detention. He submits that the non-placement of such relevant material amounts to withholding material facts from the detaining authority and has deprived the detaining authority of an opportunity to consider the entire material in its proper perspective and, consequently, the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit submits that the contention with respect to the grant of bail in the aforesaid three cases, the grounds for passing the order for preventive detention has not been disputed. He further submits that from perusal of the 5 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) order of preventive detention, the consideration of the bail order is not reflected and also in the counter affidavit there is no averment that the bail orders were taken into consideration by the detaining authority or were placed by the concerned authority before the detaining authority. 8. In Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra1 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the order of detention passed without considering the bail orders i.e., consideration ignoring the material/relevant material 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 1 (2012) 2 SCC 72 6 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) 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 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 7 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) but the detaining authority was not aware of the fact of grant of bail to the detenu.” 9. 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 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 2 W.P.No.33545 of 2025 APHC decided on 22.06.2026 8 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) 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 9 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) order is a vital material for consideration 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.” 10. 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. 10 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) 11. Thus, applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases, 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. 12. Consequently, the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained. The 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. 13. The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention passed against the detenu by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.1616, Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 22.12.2025, and the order of confirmation by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.439 Revenue (Excise.II) Department, dated 18.03.2026. The detenu by name Sri Babu Backiaraj, aged 43 yrs, S/o Babu, R/o D.No.F. 5. Block No.75, Indiramma Indlu, Seshadri Nagar, Padipeta Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh, shall be released/set free forthwith, if not detained in any other pending case. 14. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non- consideration of the relevant material the bail orders by the detaining authority, the respondent No.2- Principal Secretary to the Government shall be at liberty to pass fresh order but in accordance with law and in case any order of preventive detention is so passed, afresh the period of detention shall 11 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) not exceed in total 12 months, including the period already served under the impugned detention orders. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ____________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Date:07.09.2026 RPD/KSK. 12 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.10646 OF 2026) 163 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR (ALLOWED) WRIT PETITION NO: 10646 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 RPD.