1 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) APHC010255722026 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: 14457 OF 2026 Between: 1. B. Manju Lakshmi, W/o. Bangaru Suresh Achari Aged about 47 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 6-170, Poola Bazar, Ramaswami temple, Kadiri town and Mandal, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, General Administration (SC-I) Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 522237. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya District, Andhra Pradesh - 515134. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya District, Andhra Pradesh - 515134. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 516002 ...Respondents 2 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 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 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 respondent no.4 herein to produce the detenu namely Bangaru Bala Murali Krishna @ Balu who is detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honble court and he may be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 vide D.Dis.No. MAGL/E-34299, dated 07-02- 2026 which was confirmed by the respondent no.1 vide G.O.Rt. No. 669 dated 26-03-2026 as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, and unconstitutional and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following order: 3 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) ORDER: :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Karthik, learned counsel representing Smt.Ayesha Azma, 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 mother 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 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District, passed an order of preventive detention against the detenu, vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.MAGL/E-34299, dated 07.02.2026, 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"). 4. After the receipt of a report from the Advisory Board dated 05.03.2026, the detention order was confirmed by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.669, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 26.03.2026, for a period of twelve months from the date of detention i.e., from 10.02.2026. The detention order was passed based on eight (08) criminal cases pending against the detenu. List of those cases is as under : - 4 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) Sl. No Cr.No., Date & Police Station Police stations Present stage of the case 1. Cr.No.85 of 2020 U/s.160 IPC Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was given station bail by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and compounded before the Lok Adalat, vide C.C.No.1075 of 2022, dated 12.11.2022 and the case is closed. 2. Cr. No. 514/2020 U/s.160 IPC Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was given station bail by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and compounded before the Lok Adalat, vide C.C.No.1076 of 2022, dated 12.11.2022 and the case is closed. 3. Cr. No. 263 of 2022 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was given station bail by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and compounded before the Lok Adalat, vide C.C.No.1009 of 2022, dated 12.11.2022 and the case is closed. 4. Cr. No. 17/2023 U/s 323, 506, 354, 384 r/w 34 IPC Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was given station bail by issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and compounded before the Lok Adalat, vide C.C.No.1053 of 2022, dated 09.09.2022 and the case is closed. 5. Cr. No. 13/2024 U/s 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was enlarged on bail, vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.204 of 2024, dated 25.03.2024 and charge sheet was filed and case is pending adjudication, vide PRC.No.3 of 2025. 6. Cr. No. 324 of 2024 U/s 109 of BNS Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was enlarged on bail, vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.939 of 2024, dated 19.12.2024 and charge sheet was filed and case is pending adjudication, vide PRC.No.7 of 2025. 7. Cr. No. 41 of 2025 U/s 109(1), 118(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS Kadiri Rural U/G P.S., Detenu was enlarged on bail, vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.1032 of 2025, dated 18.07.2025 and charge sheet was filed and PRC number is awaited. 8. Cr. No. 11 of 2026 U/s 7(a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act,1995. Kadiri Town P.S., Detenu was arrested on 07.02.2026 and he was enlarged on bail, vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2026, dated 16.02.2026 and case is under investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained for the reason that the detenu had been granted bail in four cases under Ground Nos.5 to 8. Reply affidavit has been filed to the above effect, enclosing copies of the bail orders in ground 5 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) Nos.5 to 8. Except in ground No.8, in ground Nos.5 to 7 the aforesaid bail orders were passed prior to the order of preventive detention. He submits that the relevant material i.e., bail orders and the conditions imposed therein, were not placed before the detaining authority. The said relevant material was not considered. So, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated and the order of preventive detention cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the criminal cases referred to in the first four grounds are stale cases of the years 2020 to 2023 and, therefore, passing of the preventive detention order in the year 2026, on the basis of those cases, is unsustainable, as there is no live link between the alleged activities and the necessity for passing the preventive detention order. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that there are eight (08) criminal cases against the detenu and upon consideration of the material placed before him and recording his satisfaction, the detaining authority passed the order of preventive detention, which has been confirmed by the State Government. 8. With regard to the non-consideration of the bail orders, learned Special Government Pleader, referring to the counter affidavit, submits that the said bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority and, consequently, were not considered by the detaining authority. 6 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The law is 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. 11. 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. 1 (2012) 2 SCC 72 7 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 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 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 8 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 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.” 12. 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. 2 W.P.No.33545 of 2025 APHC decided on 22.06.2026 9 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 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 10 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) ((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 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.” 13. The fact that the bail granted in the said criminal cases under Ground Nos.5 to 8 aforementioned was not considered by the detaining authority. The absence of such consideration assumes significance, as the 11 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) subjective satisfaction for preventive detention cannot be founded merely on the pendency of a criminal case when the detenu has already been released on bail. Such non-consideration of a vital and relevant material vitiates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. It also indicates that the detaining authority has proceeded mechanically. 14. In Ponna Roja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 3 , 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. 15. Applying the principle as in Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (supura), Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi (supra) and 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 live and proximate causal connection between the incidents of 2020, 2022 and 2023 and the necessity for the order of 3 W.P.No.5684 of 2026 APHC decided on 14.07.2026 12 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) preventive detention, has also not been considered which vitiates the order of preventive detention. 16. 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. 17. The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of preventive detention by the 2nd respondent-The Collector & District Magistrate, Sri Satya Sai District, passed against the detenu vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.MAGL/E-34299, dated 07.02.2026, and the order of confirmation by the State vide G.O.Rt.No.669, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 26.03.2026. The detenu by name Sri Bangaru Bala Murali Krishna @ Balu, aged 24 years, S/o Late B. Suresh Achari, R/o D.No. 6-170, Poola Bazar, Kadiri Town, Sri Sathya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh, shall be released/set free forthwith, if not detained in any other pending case. 18. Since, we have set aside the order on the ground of non- consideration of the relevant material the bail orders, which was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority 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 not exceed in total 12 months, including the period already served under the impugned detention orders. 13 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 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. 14 (RNT,J & AGD,J W.P. NO.14457 OF 2026) 169 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR (ALLOWED) WRIT PETITION NO: 14457 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 RPD/KSK.