JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kirthi Teja, learned Government Pleader, attached to the Office of the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the petitioner for direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s husband, namely, Dunga Manikyam (in short ‘the detenu’) pursuant to the Order of his detention.

3. The 2^nd respondent – the Principal Secretary to Government (FAC), Revenue (Excise-II) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Rt.No.711, dated 09.07.2025 passed an Order of Detention under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short ‘PIT NDPS Act, 1988’) on the ground that the detenu was involved in ‘illicit traffic’ within the meaning of Section 2 (e) (iii) of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and to prevent him from further indulging in such type of activities, it was necessary to pass the Order of Detention. The case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board which reviewed and submitted its reports/opinions dated 07.08.2025 stating that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu and accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.931, dated 26.08.2025 under Section 3 (1) read with Section 11 of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988, confirming the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention.

4. The Order of Detention was passed basing on six different criminal cases, registered against the detenu. Those cases are as under:

5. Challenging the aforesaid Orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the only submission that the Order of Detention is unsustainable and erroneous in law. He submitted that out of 6 cases, the detenu was granted bail in 5 cases. In one other case, out of 6 cases, i.e., Cr.No.42 of 2025 (i.e., 6^th case) supra of Payakaraopeta Police Station, on the date of passing of the Order of Detention i.e., 09.07.2025, the detenu was in judicial custody. The said case was also taken into consideration, but the 2^nd respondent did not record its satisfaction about the necessity to pass the order of detention once the detenu was already in judicial custody, or about the imminent possibility of his release on bail in that case. He submitted that the Order of Detention, cannot be sustained on that ground and so the order of confirmation.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the following cases in support of his contentions:

1. Syed Mohiyuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 515

2. Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, (2015) 16 SCC 253

3. V. Adi Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 565

4. Cheemparthi Parvin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, WP.No.1803 of 2021, Decided on 27.04.2021 (APHC, Amaravati)

5. Lakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh,  WP.No.7335 of 2023 & Batch, Decided on 03.07.2023 (APHC, Amaravati)

6. Cheemparthi Salma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, WP.No.932 of 2025, Decided on 26.09.2025 (APHC, Amaravati)

8. Sri Kirthi Teja, learned Government Pleader, for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid Cr.No.42 of 2025, as referred to above, was taken into consideration in the detention order. In the said case, the detenu was in the judicial custody. In the order of detention any satisfaction as regards the possibility or the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail was not recorded. However, he submitted further that even if the contention of the petitioner’s counsel be correct on that ground, the order of detention would still not be vitiated. The order of detention can stand in view of the other grounds with respect to the other criminal cases i.e., in Ground Nos.1 to 5.

9. Learned Government Pleader referred to the pr