S.Preethi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
- Court
- High Court of Andhra Pradesh
1
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 14966 OF 2026
ORDER: :- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader
attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, who is wife 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.
nd
3. The 2 respondent-Collector & District Magistrate, Tirupati
District, passed an order of preventive detention against the detenu, vide
proceedings in REV02/242/2026-SA-C2 , dated 12.02.2026 , under Section
3(1) & 3(2) 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
06.03.2026 , the detention order was confirmed by the State vide
G.O.Rt.No.683 , General Administration (SC-I) Department, dated 31.03.2026 ,
for a period of twelve months from the date of detention i.e., from 14.02.2026.
2
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
5. The detention order was passed based on six (06) grounds/
criminal cases pending against the detenu. List of those cases is as under : -
1) Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati,
Cr.No. 46/2024, Dated 21.07.2024 under Section 303 (2) r/w 3(5)
BNS, BNS, 49, 61(2) BNS and Sec. 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv,
x, 36(a) r/w 32A of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
2) Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati,
Cr.No. 64/2024, Dated 29.08.2024, U/sec: 303 (2) r/w 3 (5) BNS,
49, 61(2) BNS and Sec. 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36(a) r/w
32A, 32-B, 29(4)(a)(i) of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
3) Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati,
Cr.No. 82/2024, Dated: 20.10.2024. U/Sec 303 (2) r/w 3 (5) BNS,
49, 61(2) BNS and Sec.20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36(a) r/w
32A, 29(4)(a)(i) of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
4) Bangarupalem UPS, Chittoor, Cr.No.203/2025,
Dated: 15.10.2025, U/Sec.303(2), 152(a), 281 BNS and Sec.
20(1)(d)(i)(a)(b), 20(1)(c)(ii), 20(1)(c)(iii), 20(1)(c) (iv), 20(1)(c)(ix),
20(1)(c)(x) r/w 32A of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
5) Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati,
Cr.No. 57/2025, Dated: 19.11.2025, U/Sec 303 (2) r/w 3 (5)BNS,
49, 61(2) BNS and Sec. 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1)(c) ii, ii, iv, x, 36(a) r/w
32A, 29(4)(a) (i)of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
3
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
6) Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force PS, Tirupati,
Cr.No. 63/2025, Dated: 18.12.2025, U/Sec 303 (2) r/w 3 (5)BNS,
49, 61(2) BNS and Sec. 20(1)(d)(i)(a) r/w 20(1) (c) ii, iii, iv, x, 36(a)
r/w 32A of the AP Forest Amendment Act, 2016.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu was
granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.82 of 2024 of the Red Sanders Anti-
Smuggling Task Force Police Station under Ground No.3, on 06.03.2025.
However, a copy of the bail application and anticipatory bail was not placed
before the detaining authority.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the detenu submitted a
representation to the Government on 17.04.2026, which was duly received by
nd
the Government. Thereafter, remarks were called for from the 2 respondent-
District Collector on 24.04.2026, and the District Collector furnished the
remarks to the Government on 01.06.2026. Subsequently, the representation
was rejected by the Government on 15.06.2026 vide G.O.Rt.No.1170.
8. Learned counsel submits that there was a delay of 38 days (from
24.04.2026 to 01.06.2026, excluding the starting date) in furnishing the
nd
remarks by the 2 respondent-Collector and District Magistrate. After that,
there was a further delay of 14 days (from 01.06.2026 to 15.06.2026,
excluding 01.06.2026) in considering and rejecting the representation by the
st
1 respondent-Government, thereby resulting in an aggregate delay of 52
4
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
days from the date on which the remarks were called for till the rejection of the
representation.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that the order of preventive detention does not reflect
any consideration of the anticipatory bail application, but he contends further
that there is no mandatory requirement to place the bail application before the
detaining authority to consider, every bail application filed by the detenu.
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that,
insofar as the representation is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to
the dates. However, an explanation has been furnished for the delay in
considering the representation. In this regard, a counter-affidavit has been
st
filed on behalf of the 1 respondent, explaining the circumstances which
occasioned the delay. He submits that the explanation furnished constitutes
sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the order of preventive detention
cannot be vitiated on that ground.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the
detenu is involved in six (06) criminal cases relating to the illegal cutting and
smuggling of red sandalwood within a period of two years. He contends that
the detenu is a habitual offender and that his activities have caused immense
damage to the forest and its produce, apart from having an adverse impact on
the ecological environment and disturbing public order. He therefore, submits
5
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
that there is no illegality either in the order of preventive detention or in the
order confirming the same.
12. We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. In Ground No.1, the detenu was remanded to judicial custody and
lodged in the Special Sub-Jail, Tirupati. In Ground No.2, the detenu was
remanded to judicial custody. In Ground No.4, the detenu was sent to judicial
custody and remanded to the Special Sub-Jail, Tirupati. In Ground Nos.5 and
6, the detenu was produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First
Class for Trial of Cases relating to Red Sanders through P.T. warrants, and
the said cases are stated to be under investigation.
14. So far as the first submission with regard to the alleged
non-consideration of the anticipatory bail application in the criminal case
referred to in Ground No.3 is concerned, the anticipatory bail order was
considered by the detaining authority, as it is evidence from the consideration
under Ground No.3 in the order of preventive detention. So, merely because
the application for grant of bail was not placed and, so its non-consideration
would not vitiate the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining
authority. When the bail order was considered, the copy of the bail application
would not be a relevant material.
6
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
15. The relevant portion of the preventive detention order in Ground
No.3 reads as follows:
“ The accused A4 Raju Babu @ Boosi Rajasekhar
was got Anticipatory Bail from the Hob'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Crl.MP.No.1696/2025,
dt.06.03.2025.. .”
16. Thus, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the anticipatory bail granted to the detenu in the case referred
to in Ground No.3 was not taken into consideration by the detaining authority
is not borne out by the record. On the contrary, the preventive detention order
specifically records the factum of grant of anticipatory bail to the detenu by the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.M.P.No.1696 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025.
Therefore, the contention that the said material was not considered by the
detaining authority cannot be accepted.
17. Additionally, the preventive detention order records that the
detenu is involved in the further cases referred to in Part-C under the heading
“Prosecution”, which comprises 11 cases, as mentioned below:
PART-C
PROSECUTION:
The accused B.Rajashekar @ Rajababu @ Boosi Rajasekhar, age 3.
33 years S/o A.Balakrishna, R/o Door No. 15-2857, Bharath Nagar,
7
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
Greemspet Chittoor Town, Chittoor District. Occupation: Car Driver.
Adhar No- 824787676728 has, therefore, destroyed the pristine natural
forests for theft and the results of his greed and also disturbing public order,
peace, tranquility, social harmony in the society which is depicted below as he
is responsible for the following cases:-
1) Theft of Red Sanders timber from Seshachalam Reserve
Forests, which is punishable Under Section 379 of IPC.,
(Theft of National Property)/ Section 303 (2) of BNS.,
2) Acts done by several persons in furtherance ce of of co
common intention punishable Under Section 34 of IPC., /
Section 3 (5) of BNS.,
3) Punishment for abetment if the act abetted is committed in
consequence, and where no express provision is made for its
Under Section 109 of IPC Section on 49 of BNS.,
4) Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy Under Section 120 (B)
of IPC., / Section 61 (2) of BNS.,
5) Attempt to murder punishable Under Section 307 of IPC., /
Section 109 of BNS.,
6) Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323
of IPC., / Section 115 (2) of BNS.,
7) Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty punishable Under Section 353 of IPC.,
/Section 132 of BNS.,
8) Punishment for kidnapping under Section 363 of IPC., /
Section 137 (2) of BNS.,
9) Trespass into the Government Reserve Forests, causing
damage by willfully cutting, dragging, felling, grid leg, loping,
taps, collection and removal of Forest produce i.e., Red
Sanders from Reserve Forests punishable U/Section 20 (1) C
(ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) & (x), Sec 20 (d) (i) (a) (b) (2) (a) (b), Sec 29 (2)
(b) (4) (a) (i) (ii) (b), Sec 29, Sec 29 (4) (a) & (b), Sec 32A, Sec
32B, Sec 32C, Sec 62A and Sec 68 of AP Forest (Amendment)
Act, 2016 (AP Act No.15 of 2016).
8
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
10 Contravention of Rule 3 of AP Red Sanders Wood
Possession Rules, 1989.
11) Contravention of Section 3, 4 & 6 of Blological Diversity
Act, 2002.
18. So far as the contention relating to the delay in considering the
nd
representation is concerned, the 2 respondent-Collector and District
Magistrate has also filed an additional affidavit, inter alia , stating that the
petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, submitted a representation dated
17.04.2026 by post to the Government. Upon receipt of the said
nd
representation, the Government called for remarks from the 2 respondent on
nd
24.04.2026. Pursuant thereto, the 2 respondent, by letter dated 27.04.2026,
requested the Superintendent of Police to furnish remarks on the petitioner's
representation. The said representation was thereafter forwarded by the
Superintendent of Police to the concerned officers and Investigating Officers
dealing with the cases referred to in the grounds of detention. Upon examining
the contents of the petitioner's representation with reference to the respective
cases, the concerned officers submitted their remarks through proper channel
to the Superintendent of Police on 27.04.2026. Thereafter, the remarks were
nd
furnished to and forwarded to the 2 respondent-Collector and District
Magistrate on 08.05.2026.
19. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that during the period
from 16.04.2026 to 15.06.2026, the district authorities and the staff of the
9
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
Collectorate were extensively engaged in census-related duties. It is stated
that census operations are ordinarily conducted once in ten years and,
following the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the census
operations are being conducted during the present year. During the said
period, the concerned officers and staff were required to attend to fieldwork
and other duties connected with the census operations and, thereafter, the
preparatory work relating to the Election Commission's Special Intensive
Revision (SIR). Consequently, the availability of the concerned officers and
staff for routine office work was affected during the aforesaid period. The
petitioner's representation was, therefore, processed at the Collectorate along
with the other official duties and responsibilities being attended to by the
concerned officers and staff. It is stated that the process could not be
completed at the earliest and that the remarks could ultimately be forwarded
to the Government only on 01.06.2026.
20. Having regard to the contents of the counter-affidavit and the
additional affidavit filed by the respondents, as referred to hereinabove, we
are satisfied that the delay in considering the representation has been
satisfactorily explained. The material placed on record discloses the steps
taken by the concerned authorities at various stages for obtaining the requisite
remarks and processing the representation. The explanation furnished by the
respondents, including the official duties being attended to during the relevant
period, cannot be said to be unacceptable or unreasonable.
10
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
21. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no unexplained or
inordinate delay in considering and rejecting the representation so as to vitiate
the order of preventive detention or the continued detention.
22. The detaining authority, upon consideration of the material placed
before it, has recorded its satisfaction with regard to the activities of the
detenu in a detailed order and concluded that the detenu falls within the
definition of “Goonda” under Section 2(g) of the Act,1986. The detaining
authority has specifically recorded that the activities of the detenu are
dangerous to the rare and pristine forest wealth, that such activities are
habitual in nature and are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and
that it is necessary to prevent the detenu from further indulging in illicit felling
of Red Sanders trees by entering into Reserve Forests, dressing the trees into
logs, committing theft, illegally transporting the same to other States for
earning huge illegal gains and smuggling Red Sanders wood logs, and
thereby to curtail his involvement in such offences.
23. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and having regard to the
nature and gravity of the activities attributed to the detenu, the detaining
authority has passed the order of preventive detention with a view to
preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order.
11
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
24. We are satisfied that the order of preventive detention is a well-
reasoned order, passed upon due consideration of the entire material placed
before the detaining authority. The detaining authority has, on the basis of the
material available on record, arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction for
passing the order of preventive detention.
25. It is well settled in law that the Court, while exercising judicial
review in matters of preventive detention, does not sit in appeal over the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and cannot substitute its own
satisfaction for that of the competent authority, unless the order suffers from
any illegality, non-application of mind, consideration of irrelevant material,
non-consideration of relevant material or other infirmity recognized in law. In
the present case, no such infirmity has been established.
1
26. In Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Others ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in
matters concerning preventive detention and the need to examine whether the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority suffers from any legally
recognized infirmity.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The order of preventive
1
(2023) 9 SCC 587
12
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
detention does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference
by this Court.
28. The Writ Petition lacks merit and is dismissed , accordingly.
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: 13.10.2026
Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o
RPD.
13
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
(DISMISSED)
WRIT PETITION NO: 14966 of 2026
Date: 13.10.2026
Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o
RPD.
14
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 14966 OF 2026
% 13.10.2026
# S.Preethi.
……Petitioner
And:
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
….Respondents.
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy
^Counsel for the respondents : Sri Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh
learned Assistant Government Pleader
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2023) 9 SCC 587
15
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 14966 OF 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.10.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
____________________
ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J
16
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
Date of reserved for orders : 01.10.2026
Date of pronouncement : 13.10.2026
Date of uploading : 16.10.2026
APHC010285302026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3624]
th
TUESDAY, THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 14966/2026
Between:
1. S.PREETHI, W/O. B. RAJASHEKAR, AGE 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15-
2857, BHARATH NAGAR, GREAMSPET, CHITTOR, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238
2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT. 517503
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, KADAPA, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT. 516002
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toPleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the
17
(RNT,J & AGD,J
W.P. NO.14966 OF 2026)
nature of writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the constitution of India
directing the 4th respondent to produce B. Rajashekar S/o A. Balakrishna,
who is now detained in Central Prison, Kadapa before this Honble Court and
he may be ordered to be released forthwith after declaring his detention vide
REV02/242/2026-SA-C2, dt. 12.02.2026, passed by the 2nd respondent
which was confirmed by the respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 683, dt.31.03.2026
General Administration (SC-I) Dept., as illegal and un constitutional and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL