ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Challenging the legal validity of the order of preventive detention dated 26.12.2025 passed by the detaining authority against a person by name Moona @ Muna Saddam Hussain, which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.264, General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 09.02.2026, the instant writ petition has been filed by the father of the detenu.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Chalasani Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the father of a person by name Moona @ Muna Saddam Hussain (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu'). Three crimes were registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Two crimes were registered in T.P. Gudur Police Station and one crime was registered in Muthukur Police Station. Considering the fact that the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in commission of the said offences and alleging that his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the sponsoring authority has made a request to the District Collector, who is the detaining authority, to pass an order of preventive detention against the detenu. The detaining authority has considered the material placed before him, including the orders of bail granted to the detenu, and he found that the detenu has been repeatedly committing the said offences even after grant of bail to him and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detaining authority was of the opinion that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him. Accordingly, he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention against the detenu. The said order was considered and confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.264 dated 09.02.2026.

4. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, has now challenged the said order of preventive detention on the ground that the detaining authority has not given any reasons as to how the acts of the detenu are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the impugned order has been mechanically passed ordering for his preventive detention, which has the effect of curtailing his personal liberty. Therefore, he has prayed to set aside the impugned order and to set the detenu at liberty.

5. The 4^th respondent - sponsoring authority has filed his counter denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is pleaded that as the detenu has been repeatedly committing the offences even after grant of bail that the detaining authority, after considering the material placed before him including the orders of bail, was of the opinion that an order of preventive detention is required to be passed against him and accordingly, he has passed the impugned order of preventive detention, which, in turn, was confirmed by the State as per G.O.Rt.No.264 dated 09.02.2026. Therefore, it is pleaded that the impugned order of preventive detention is perfectly valid in law and it does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. A perusal of the material on record shows that three crimes were registered against the detenu, viz., (1) Crime No.119 of 2024 in Muthukur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2) & 61(2) of BNS, (2) Crime No.208 of 2025 in TP Gudur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 308(5), 115(2) & 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 and (3) Crime No.191 of 2025 in TP Gudur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. Bail was granted to him in one of the said crimes and in another crime, protection was given to him by this Court in a quash petition directing the police