Date of reserved for orders : 04.08.2026

Date of pronouncement : 06.10.2026

Date of uploading : 06.10.2026

APHC010702582025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3601]

TUESDAY, THE 06

TH

DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

WRIT PETITION NO: 36719/2025

Between:

1. GUMMALA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O VENKATASUBBAIAH AGED

ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKE R R/O CHALAMGARIPALLI,

MUTHUKURU KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT-516501.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SC- 1) DEPARTMENT A.P.

SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, Y.S.R. KADAPA

DISTRICT- 516003.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRCT-

516003.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA.

Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516003

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

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 a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents herein to produce

my husband/detenuei.e., Gummalla @ Gummala Venkata Subbaiah @ Seshu,

Aged about 39 uears, Occ Unemployed, R/o Chalamgaripalli Village, Atlur

Mandal, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, before this Hon'ble Court and may be

set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the order of Detention

passed by the 2nd Respondent Vide proceedings Rc.C1(Magl)/126/2025, dated

04.11.2025, as confirmed by G.O.R.T. No. 22, dated 25.01.2026 as illegal,

arbitrary and colorable excise of powers and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main prayer was

amended as per c.o.dt.4.8.2026 Vide I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.No.36719 of 2025.

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 amend the main prayer in W.P. No. 36719 of 2025 as It is just and

necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas

Corpus

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following:

3

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

W.P.NO.36719 OF 2025

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi)

Ms. Gummala Vijaya Lakshmi, the wife of Mr. Gummalla @ Gummala

Venkata Subbaiah @ Seshu (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), filed this

Writ Petition.

2. The relief sought for is

“….Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce

the husband of the Writ Petitioner, the detenu, namely,

Gummalla @ Gummala Venkata Subbaiah @ Seshu, aged about

39 years, Occupation – unemployed, resident of Chalamgaripalli

Village, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, before this

Hon’ble Court, and to set him at liberty/release him forthwith by

declaring the order of detention passed by the 2

nd

respondent

vide proceedings File No. REV-CSECOPDL(PRCO)/4/2025-

SA(C1)-KDPCO,dated 04.11.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and a

colourable exercise of power, and violative of Articles 14 and 21

of the Constitution of India…..”

Brief facts:

3. Respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the referral authority),

having found the detenu's involvement in nearly six crimes (tabulated below),

forwarded a proposal to Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the

detaining authority) with relevant material, seeking invocation of the Andhra

Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986

(referred to as the “Preventive Detention Act”). The detaining authority, based on

the alleged involvement of the detenu in various crimes, described the detenu as

4

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

a Goonda under section 2(g) of the Preventive Detention Act, claiming that his

activities are dangerous and likely to result in similar acts of violence in the

future, and that he must be kept under control. The six crimes considered for

detention are as follows:

Sl.No. Crime

number

Offences under section Police station Case status

1. 63 of 2024 457, 380 of I.P.C Sidhout police

station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District.

Pending trial

2. 233 of

2024

331(4), 305 B.N.S. Badvel U/G police

Station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District.

Under

investigation

3. 210 of

2024

331(4), 305 B.N.S. Duvvur police

Station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District.

Under

investigation

4. 28 of 2025 331(4), 305(a) B.N.S. Atmakur police

Station, Nellore

District.

Charge sheet

was filed

5. 302 of

2025

457, 380 of I.P.C

[331(4), 305(a) of BNS]

Mydukuru police

station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District.

Under

investigation

6. 129 of

2025

111, 307, 132, 61(2) r/w

3(5) of B.N.S.,

Sec.20(1)(d)(i)(a)(b) r/w

Sec.20(1)(C)(ii)(iii)(iv) (x),

Sec.36(a) (b) r/w Sec.32

A, Sec:29(4) (a)(i) of the

A.P Forest (Amendment)

Act, 2016 and Sec.25(1B)

(a) of Arms Act, 1959.

Badvel Rural Police

Station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District.

Under

investigation

5

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

4. The detaining authority considered the following grounds for the

detention of the detenu:

Ground No.1: Crime No.63 of 2024 of Sidhout Police Station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District was registered on 24.05.2024 for the offences under

sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, the detenu was arrested

on 25.10.2024 and was released on regular bail on 28.11.2024, charge

sheet was filed on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sidhout.

Ground No.2: Crime No.233 of 2024 of Badevel U/G Police Station, Y.S.R

Kadapa District was registered on 01.08.2024 for the alleged offences

under sections 331(4), 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, detenu

was arrested on execution of Prisoner Transfer Warrant on 06.08.2025 and

later he was enlarged on bail on 03.10.2025.

Ground No.3: Crime No.210 of 2024 of Duvvur Police Station, Y.S.R.

Kadapa District, was registered on 06.09.2024 for the alleged offences

under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The

detenu was in judicial remand in the said crime at the time of passing of

the detention order.

Ground No.4: Crime No.28 of 2025 of Atmakur Police Station, S.P.S.R.

Nellore District, occurred on 04.03.2025 and the crime was registered on

the same day for the alleged offences under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The detenu was enlarged on bail on

15.04.2025. The charge sheet was subsequently filed.

Ground No.5: Crime No.302 of 2025 of Mydukuru Police Station, Y.S.R.

Kadapa District, occurred between 03.02.2024 at 8:00 PM and 04.02.2024

at 7:30 AM. When the complainant opened the shop on 04.02.2024, they

6

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

noticed that certain gold ornaments had been stolen. The complaint was

lodged after a lapse of 18 months, on 30.07.2025, for the alleged offences

under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The remand report

is not placed on record.

Ground No.6: Crime No.129 of 2025 of Badvel Rural Police Station,

Y.S.R. Kadapa District, occurred on 06.08.2025 and was registered the

same day for alleged offences under Sections 111, 307, 132, 61(2) read

with 3(5) of the B.N.S.; Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a)(b) read with Section

20(1)(C)(ii)(iii)(iv)(x); Section 36(a)(b) read with Section 32A; Section

29(4)(a)(i) of the A.P. Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016; and Section

25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. On the same day, while police officials

were conducting routine vehicle checks, they apprehended the detenu.

Upon enquiry, the detenu confessed to the crime, after which police

arrested him and released him on bail on 07.10.2025.

5. The detaining authority, having found the involvement of the detenu

in these crimes, effects the public order, reaching to subjective satisfaction

issued the order of detention dated 04.11.2025 and the detenu was sent to

Central Prison, Kadapa. The detaining authority forwarded it to the Advisory

Board, which held its meeting on 02.12.2025 and thereafter forwarded its opinion

to Respondent No.1, the State. On considering the opinion of the Advisory Board

that “there is sufficient cause in detention of the detenu” Respondent No.1,

under section 12(1) read with section 13 of the Preventive Detention Act,

confirmed the order of detention under G.O.R.T. No.22, dated 05.01.2026, for a

period of 12 months from the date of his detention, i.e., 06.11.2025.

6. The petitioner has challenged these orders.

7

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

Petitioner’s case:

7. The petitioner asserted that the detaining authority passed the order

of detention in a mechanical manner, without relevant and existing grounds, and

that the detention is therefore illegal. The petitioner challenges the detention

order on various grounds, including that Respondent No.3, the Superintendent of

Police, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, ought to have investigated the whereabouts of the

detenu and his recent anti-social activities before passing the order.

8. The detaining authority took the various crimes into consideration

without considering whether there was a real possibility of prejudicial future

conduct. It also failed to supply the detenu with all the relevant case documents

to enable him to make an appropriate representation, and failed to consider that

the alleged incidents constituted a breach of law and not a breach of law and

order. Crime No.28 of 2025 (Sl.No.4), of Atmakur Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore

District, has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of detaining authority;

even so, they considered that offence and issued the detention proceedings

which is not proper. The detaining authority wrongly treated the detenu as a

“Goonda” and illegally detained him.

Respondent’s case:

9. In response detaining authority filed a counter-affidavit denying all

the allegations.

10. It asserts that, it has considered the detenu’s involvement in the six

alleged crimes and that, the facts and circumstances of the case, it arrived to

satisfaction that, the detenu’s continued movement was not safe in the interest of

society, since there was an imminent possibility of his indulging in similar

prejudicial activities detrimental to public order, that, unless prevented by an

8

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

appropriate order of detention, the detenu would likely to continue such activities;

accordingly, the detention order is passed. The authorities served the copy of the

detention order on the detenu. The order was forwarded to the advisory board

and on its opinion, the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred as State) exercising

its powers, approved the order of detention and issued the proceedings

accordingly.

11. The detaining authority correctly applied section 2(g) of the

Preventive Detention Act and described the detenu as a Goonda, since he is a

member or leader of a Goonda gang who habitually commits offences punishable

under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bails

granted to the detenu did not stop his continuing criminal activities. His actions

pose a threat to public peace, safety and order, and he is likely to continue the

same offences unless prevented. The detaining authority specifically stated that it

had invoked the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, and duly

communicated the order of detention. If released, the detenu’s activities would

prejudice society and cause harm to public order, law and order, and societal

peace. The detaining authority passed the order after careful scrutiny of the

entire material and forwarded it to the Advisory Board, which considered the

entire material placed before it and issued its opinion. The detaining authority

considered the six cases — three from 2024 and three from 2025 — and was

satisfied that there was connectivity and a live link between the offences.

12. The detaining authority replied to the ground regarding territorial

jurisdiction and the validity of the detention order, that, it passed the detention

order after considering the detenu’s habitual activities, which have a direct nexus

with the maintenance of public order. The fact that one crime occurred outside

the District limits does not divest the detaining authority of its jurisdiction, since

the detenu’s other activities demonstrate a continuous threat affecting public

9

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

order in the District. Respondent No.2 passed the detention order appropriately,

without deviating from any provision of the Act.

Arguments of learned counsels:

13. Sri S. Ramalakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing

for Respondents No.1 and 2 have advanced their submissions.

14. Sri S. Ramalakshmana Reddy, argued that the detaining authority

did not consider the bails granted to the detenu in the several offences and

wrongly detained him. His main argument was that there was a variation in

territorial jurisdiction. He further argued that there was substantial delay on the

part of the State in confirming the detention order. Learned counsel further

submitted that: in Sl.No.1, Crime No.63 of 2024 of Sidhout Police Station, the

Court granted bail on 28.11.2024, though the detention order was passed on

04.11.2025; in Sl.No.2, Crime No.233 of 2024 of Badvel U/G Police Station, the

Court granted the detenu bail on 03.10.2025; in Sl.No.3, Crime No.210 of 2024 of

Duvvur Police Station, the detenu remained in judicial custody at the time the

detention order was passed; in Sl.No.4, Crime No.28 of 2025 of Atmakur Police

Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, the Court granted the detenu bail on

15.04.2025; in Sl.No.5, Crime No.302 of 2025 of Mydukuru Police Station, the

detenu remained in judicial custody at the time the detention order was passed;

and in Sl.No.6, Crime No.129 of 2025 of Badvel Rural Police Station, Y.S.R.

Kadapa District, the Court granted bail on 07.10.2025, before the detention order

was passed.Learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority did not take

these grants of bail into consideration, despite passing the detention order based

on all six offences. He further submitted that although Crime No.28 of 2025,

allegedly committed on 04.03.2025, in fact occurred in S.P.S.R. Nellore District,

10

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

the other crimes occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent No.2,

the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on sub-section (2) of

section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, stressing that the detaining authority

must consider the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail within the local

limits of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police

before issuing an order of detention. Since Crime No.28 of 2025 did not occur

within the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2, it was improper for Respondent No.2

to take it into consideration as one of the six crimes and issue the detention

order.

16. He further argued that the detaining authority failed to consider the

bails granted to the detenu in Crime Nos.63 of 2024, 233 of 2024, 28 of 2025 and

129 of 2025, and that such non-consideration renders the detention order illegal.

In W.P.No.33545 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court specifically

held that

“that not placing of orders of bails before the concerned Advisory

Board before giving the opinion and also not placing before the

detaining authority would amount to illegality of detention.”

17. Learned counsel relied on Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana &

Ors.

1

, and argued that extraneous considerations taken into account by a

detaining authority vitiate an order of preventive detention. In the present case,

the detaining authority took into account an offence committed outside its

jurisdiction, which amounts to an extraneous consideration. Relying on the above

rulings, learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority’s failure to properly

1

1

(2024) 17 SCC 294

11

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

consider the bails granted to the detenu, at the time it passed the detention

order, renders the proceedings illegal, that the illegal proceedings amount to

illegal detention, and that the Court should release the detenu on bail.

18. In reply, Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Government Pleader

appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the detaining authority

considered all the relevant material circumstances and passed a reasoned order

following due procedure of law, without violating any provision of law. He

submitted that the detaining authority can consider the offence committed outside

its jurisdiction as part of the same live transaction when passing the order of

detention, and that there is no bar against doing so. As per sub-section (2) of

section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, the detaining authority must consider

the circumstances prevailing as on the date of passing the detention order, and

not otherwise. Of the six crimes, five were committed within the jurisdiction of

Respondent No.2; the sixth, Crime No.28 of 2025, though it occurred in S.P.S.R.

Nellore District, was committed by an offender from within the jurisdiction of

Respondent No.2. As such, there is no deviation from the provisions of law, and

he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

19. Learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that neither the

detaining authority nor the Advisory have considered the bails to the detenu.

Respondent No.2 ordered the detention of the detenu vide proceedings dated

04.11.2025, and the detenu was sent to the Central Prison, Kadapa, on

06.11.2025. Following due procedure, Respondent No.2 forwarded the matter to

the Advisory Board, which held its meeting on 02.12.2025 and thereafter

forwarded its opinion — “forwarded the said opinion to the state and there is

sufficient cause for detention of the detenu”— to Respondent No.1, the State,

and the State confirmed the order by ordering 12 months’ detention vide

G.O.R.T. No.22, dated 05.01.2026. In passing the detention order, the detaining

12

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

authority relied on the facts and circumstances and on the report submitted by

the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, that the detenu is involved in six crimes.

The detenu was primarily involved in offences of theft.

20. Sri. S. Ramalakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

refuted that the detaining authority did not consider the bails granted to the

detenu by the time the detention order was passed. His contention was that the

detenu had already been granted bail in four of the crimes by that time, and that

in two crimes the detenu was in judicial remand, and that the detaining authority

considered neither the grants of bail nor the fact of remand. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that the detaining

authority’s order specifically noted the bails that had been granted. The material

before the detaining authority properly referred to the grant of bail in four crimes:

Crime No.63 of 2024 of Sidhout Police Station, Crime No.233 of 2024 of Badvel

U/G Police Station, Crime No.28 of 2025 of Atmakur Police Station, S.P.S.R.

Nellore District, and Crime No.129 of 2025 of Badvel Rural Police Station

(Sl.Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 in the tabular form above). The detaining authority also

noted that investigation was pending in Crime No.210 of 2024 of Duvvur Police

Station and Crime No.302 of 2025 of Mydukuru Police Station (Sl.Nos.3 and 5 in

the tabular form above), and that the detenu was under remand in those crimes;

there is accordingly no illegality. On perusal of the order, it is evident that the

detention order refers to the fact that in Crime No.63 of 2024 of Sidhout Police

Station, Crime No.233 of 2024 of Badvel U/G Police Station, Crime No.28 of

2025 of Atmakur Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, and Crime No.129 of

2025 of Badvel Rural Police Station (Sl.Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 in the tabular form

above), the detenu had already been granted bail. This shows that the detaining

authority noted all the bails granted, and that the detenu remained in judicial

remand in the crimes in which bail was not granted. Therefore, the ground that

13

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

the detaining authority did not consider the bails granted to the detenu is

incorrect.

Discussion:

21. We have heard submissions of Sri. S. Ramalakshmana Reddy,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned

Government Pleader and considered the record.

22. The challenge in the present writ is that, the detention of the detenu

is not as per the established principles. As such, his fundamental right under

Article 21 is violated. Upon considering the facts and contentions of petitioner,

reply of the respondents, the grounds challenging the detention fall on three

categories.

Ground No. 1

23. Contention of the petitioner is, there is substantial delay by the

State, in passing the confirmation order. The chronology show, the order of

detention was passed on 04.11.2025 basing on the 6 crimes that the detenu is

allegedly involved. Then, the matter placed before the Advisory Board and the

Board gave its opinion on 02.12.2025. The State, upon considering the order of

detention and the opinion of the Board, has passed the orders confirming the

detention on 05.01.2026 ordering for 12 months detention. The above chronology

does show, the detention order was passed on 04.11.2025, forwarded to Board

on 21.11.2025, recommendation of the Board has been forwarded on

02.12.2025, the confirmation was on 05.01.2026. The Advisory Board has

considered the detention order on 02.12.2025. Which are within the reasonable

time. If this is the case, the ground of delay in considering the detention order by

the respective authorities is not correct. The ground do not sustain.

14

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

Ground No. 2.

24. The other ground is that the detaining authority improperly

considered Crime No.28 of 2025 (Sl.No.4 in the tabular form above), which

occurred in S.P.S.R. Nellore District, which is outside the jurisdiction of detaining

authority. That crime was considered along with the other five crimes that

occurred within the jurisdiction of detaining authority. It is relevant to reproduce

section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, which reads as follows:

“3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons:-

(1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any boot-legger,

dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-

grabber that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to

do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to

prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District

Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the Government are

satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they may, by order in writing,

direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such

District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as

provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the

said sub-section:

Provided that the period specified in the order made by the

Government under this sub-section shall not in the first instance,

exceed three months, but the Government may, if satisfied as

aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend

such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three

months at any one time.

(3)When any order is made under this section by an officer

mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the

Government together with the grounds on which the order has been

made and such other particulars as in his opinion, have a bearing on

the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than

twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has

been approved by the Government”.

15

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

25. Sub-section (1) empowers the Government to order detention upon

being satisfied regarding the offences committed by the detenu, while sub-

section (2) provides that, on considering the circumstances prevailing within the

local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate may

invoke the power under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act.

26. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the phrase “local

limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate” is not applicable to the present

case, since Respondent No.2 has local limits of jurisdiction over Y.S.R. Kadapa

District, whereas the offence in Crime No.28 of 2025 of Atmakur Police Station,

S.P.S.R. Nellore District (Sl.No.4 in the tabular form), occurred outside the

District of Respondent No.2. This shows that detaining authority ought to have

not considered this crime for subjective satisfaction and could not have passed

an order of detention for all the offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that it was improper for Respondent No.2 to add the offence

committed outside his jurisdictional limits and to record his satisfaction on that

basis, since that crime is not within his jurisdiction and he cannot take it into

consideration.

27. Learned Government Pleader refuted this argument as not

maintainable.

28. The provision of Sec. 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act,

prescribes the authority to pass orders within the local limits of jurisdiction of the

authority.

16

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

29. Similar question has come up before this Bench in Devalla Divya v.

State of Andhra Pradesh & 3 Others

2

, wherein this Bench has discussed at

length the authority and legality of the detention orders in such circumstances.

The Bench relied on Suman v. State of Tamil Nadu

3

and Nenavath Bujji

(supra). This Bench has applied the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and

discussed the same in paragraph 18, as under:

“18. Conjoint reading of sub-Section (1) & (2) of Section 3

makes it clear that if the activities, inter-alia, of „Goonda‟ are

prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and Government

or the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police is satisfied, that

in order to prevent such person from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, such person may be

detained by passing the order. The District Magistrate, and also the

Commissioner of Police have the power to pass such order if they

are satisfied that having regard to the circumstances prevailing or

likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of

such authorities there is need to pass the preventive detention

order on their satisfaction as required under law. It transpires to us

that, what is relevant is, not the place, if falling outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the detaining authority, where the offence is

registered, but the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the

area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the detaining

authority that it is necessary to pass an order of preventive

detention as provided in sub-section (1). So it cannot be said that if

there are criminal cases registered against the detenu falling

outside the territorial jurisdiction of the detaining authority, those

cannot be taken into consideration. Those criminal cases, in our

view, can certainly be taken into consideration. If there is any other

case pending within the territorial jurisdiction of the detaining

authority, the detaining authority in consideration of the

circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail with respect to the

activities of the detenu, irrespective of the location of the police

stations where the criminal cases are registered, is satisfied on the

2

W.P.No.35016 of 2025, decided on 25.09.2026

3

H.C.P.No.484 of 2004, decided by the High Court of Madras on 14.09.2004,

17

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

material that those activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of

the public order, within the area falling in territorial jurisdiction of the

detaining authority, he can pass an order of preventive detention

under the Act, 1986.”

30. On consideration of the legal position, this bench held that, if at all

the detaining authority wanted to take into consideration the FIRs registered with

the police station not falling within his territorial jurisdiction, the he should have

recorded the subjective satisfaction that, the incidences of the FIR created a

“public disorder”. With the said observations, the writ petition was allowed.

31. In the present case, as to the crime No.28 of 2025, which fall outside

the jurisdiction of the detaining authority, though referred the crime in its order,

did not say any subjective satisfaction that, the incidence of the crime has a

bearing on the public disorder. The detention order reads, that it considered all

the six crimes and universally applied the disturbance to public order, without

specifically stating, how this crime has a nexus to the crimes in his jurisdiction

and “Adversely effecting the public order” or “Prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order”. The detaining authority must have been satisfied on that aspect.

But in the present case, the detention order do not speak, that the crimes in his

territorial jurisdiction, has a connection with the activities committed outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the detaining authority. In the absence of any finding

recorded on such satisfaction, the order of preventive detention cannot be

sustained on the said criminal case, for the area falling outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the detaining authority. We do not find the mention of subjective

satisfaction with respect to the above crime in the preventive detention order,as

such, the said order of detention is against the established principles of law. With

the above legal principle, the detention order does not sustain.

18

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

Ground no. 3:

32. The contention of the petitioner is that though the detaining authority

has recorded that the detenu is involved in six crimes, it failed to appreciate that

in four cases bail was granted and in two cases he was in judicial remand, and

they have not recorded subjective satisfaction in that regard.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of Andhra

Pradesh

4

, wherein it was held that non-consideration of bail orders was

improper.

34. In the present case, out of the six crimes, the detenu had been

granted bail in four, and in the remaining two the detenu was undergoing

detention with investigation pending. Admittedly, by the time the detention order

was passed, the detenu was in judicial remand in Crime No.210 of 2024 of

Duvvur Police Station and Crime No.302 of 2025 of Mydukuru Police Station

(Sl.Nos.3 and 5 in the tabular form). As such, there could be no occasion to

consider the orders of bails by that time.

35. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the detaining authority

did not record the specific grounds for its subjective satisfaction, but merely

stated them mechanically. We have perused the detention order, in which the

detaining authority has not stated about the subjective satisfaction in specific

that, the detenu though granted bail, his activities are prejudicial to the public

order that, on bail he would indulge in or continue such activities. There is no

record to show, that the referring authority has made any reference in its

4

W.P. No.33545 of 2025, decided on 13.07.2026

19

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

reference. In the absence of it, the conclusion of the detaining authority in

passing detention order, do not fall under the established principles of law.

36. In a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, this Court examines

whether the detenu was afforded the opportunities prescribed under the Act,

followed the subjective satisfaction of nexus of various criminal activities has

effect on the public order despite of the detenu is granted with bail in the same

crimes.

Sl.

No.

Crime No. Status

i. Crime No.63 of 2024 Bail granted on 28.11.2024

ii. Crime No.233 of 2024 Bail granted on 03.10.2025

iii. Crime No.210 of 2024 Detenu was in judicial remand

iv. Crime No.28 of 2025 Bail granted on 15.04.2025

v. Crime No.302 of 2025 Detenu was in judicial remand

vi. Crime No.129 of 2025 Bail granted on 07.10.2025

37. The above facts do show, in four crimes he was granted bail prior to

order of detention and others after passing the order of detention. There is no

record that, the passing of orders of bail were placed before the advisory board

or state before passing order of confirmation. This would show serious lapses on

the part of respondents.

38. In the case of Nenavath Bujji cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court laid down certain guidelines. Para 45 relevant are reproduced hereunder:

“(ii)Summary of the findings

45.We summarise our conclusions as under:

20

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

45.1.The detaining authority should take into consideration only

relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective

satisfaction.

45.2.It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative,

that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the

subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an

implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate

matters and eschew those which are irrelevant and remote.

45.3.There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that

the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining

authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for

insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority

does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly

unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such

subjective satisfaction would be vitiated.

45.4.In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit

in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The

anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the

decision-making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is

based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or

irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind.

45.5.While making a detention order, the authority should arrive

at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in

categorical terms, in the order of detention.

45.6.The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in

the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting

in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather

the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from

the material that existed before him and the process of considering

the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while

expressing its satisfaction.

45.7.Inability on the part of the State's police machinery to

tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to

invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention.

21

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

45.8.Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s)

furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot

be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu.

The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the

application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on

the record; and

45.9.To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order of

preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine

the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy

itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been

acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order

and, second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must

further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in

a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is

prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention. For

passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the

answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the

prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the

pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack

of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority.”

39. In the case of Buddiga Dhanalaxmi (supra), it was observed in

paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 as follows:

“13. A perusal of the aforesaid further shows that in five cases

at Sl.Nos.B, C, D, F and G bails had been granted prior to passing

of the detention order dated 31.07.2025. In case at D, bail was

granted on 30.07.2025, so even if that be excluded, in all other four

cases in which bail was granted, deserved consideration by the

District Collector while passing the detention order. Further, in any

case bails were granted in all seven cases before G.O.Rt.No.1481

dated 07.08.2025 and G.O.Rt.No.1914 dated 17.10.2025 were

issued but there also, there is no consideration of the bails granted

in all seven cases.

***

22

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

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.”

40. In the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana & Others

5

,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principles for examining the legality of

an order of preventive detention, which were subsequently followed.

41. The above guidelines would show that, the detaining authorities are

cast upon the duty to take into consideration of relevant material, circumstances

and the current status, and arrive at subjective satisfaction that, normal laws will

not prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities effecting public

order. In the case of commission of offence outside the jurisdiction, the detaining

authority has to place the subjective satisfaction that, such crime has an effect in

the public order of his jurisdiction, which shall be prevented in future. The

detention order do not reflect that, though bail was granted in the recorded

cases, it did not speak about arriving at subjective satisfaction. The reasons

arrived at for ordering detention do not satisfy the requirements mandated in the

rulings in Nenavath Bujji (supra), Ameena Begum (supra) and Buddiga

Dhana Lakshmi (supra).

42. For the above reasons, we find that the order of detention lacks the

proper appreciation of application of subjective satisfaction that, if the detenu is

not prevented he would cause harm to public order.

5

(2023) 9 SCC 587

23

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

43. We therefore of the view that, the detention order affects the

fundamental right of the detenu, as such he shall be released forth with is proper.

The order of detention therefore requires interference, and the Writ Petition do

sustain.

Result:

44. In the result, the Writ Petition No.36719 of 2025 is allowed. The

order of detention issued by respondent No.2 and final order of confirmation of

the respondent No.1 are hereby set aside. The detenu Sri Gummalla @

Gummala Venkata Subbaiah @ Seshu shall be released forthwith, if he is not

required in any other case. We make no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

___________________________________

PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J

Date: 06.10.2026

DSV

24

W.P.No. 36719 of 2025

Division Bench.

37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI

WRIT PETITION NO: 36719/2025

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi)

Date: 06.10.2026

DSV