A delay of about 52 days in deciding his representation was satisfactorily explained, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held, upholding the preventive detention of a red sanders smuggling accused.
Amaravati: A habeas corpus petition by the wife of a man held under the State’s Goondas Act for alleged red sanders smuggling has failed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed it, holding that the detention order suffered from no illegality and that the authorities had adequately explained the delay in deciding his representation [S. Preethi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others].
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar, sitting as a Division Bench, reserved the matter on October 1 and delivered judgment on October 13, 2026. Justice Tilhari authored it.
How far a court can look
In preventive detention matters, the Bench noted, a court does not sit in appeal over the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction or substitute its own. It intervenes only for illegality, non-application of mind, consideration of irrelevant material, non-consideration of relevant material or another recognised infirmity. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587, called the detention order well reasoned, and found no such infirmity. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Hails Tamil Nadu’s Use of Preventive Detention to Tackle Cybercrime
What the wife argued
The petitioner raised two grounds. First, the detenu had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on March 6, 2025 in one of the cases, but a copy of the bail application was not placed before the detaining authority. Second, the representation he made on April 17, 2026 was decided late. The Government called for remarks from the Collector on April 24, the Collector sent them on June 1, and the Government rejected the representation on June 15. She counted 38 days at the Collector’s end and 14 more at the Government’s, an aggregate of 52 days.
The bail order was already on the record
The Court found the first argument contrary to the record. Ground No. 3 of the detention order itself recorded the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 1696 of 2025 on March 6, 2025. The bail order had therefore been considered, and once it had been, the bail application was not a relevant document. Not placing it did not vitiate the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
Accounting for the 52 days
The State did not dispute the dates but filed affidavits explaining the delay. The Collector said he had asked the Superintendent of Police for remarks on April 27, that the officers handling the cases gave remarks the same day, and that the remarks reached the Collector on May 8. The State added that between April 16 and June 15 the district staff were extensively engaged in census duties and, afterwards, in preparatory work for the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision, which affected routine office work.
“…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 Bench concluded that there was no unexplained or inordinate delay that would vitiate the detention order or the continued detention.
ALSO READ: Madras HC Quashes Detention of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar Under The Goondas Act
The detention order and the pending cases
The Collector and District Magistrate, Tirupati, passed the order on February 12, 2026 under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The man was detained on February 14. After the Advisory Board’s report of March 6, the State confirmed the order on March 31 for twelve months from the date of detention. The detaining authority recorded that he falls within the definition of “Goonda” under Section 2(g) of the Act, that his activities were habitual and dangerous to forest wealth, and that they were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The order rested on six pending criminal cases, five registered by the Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force police station at Tirupati between 2024 and 2025 and one at Bangarupalem police station in Chittoor. These are allegations. They are untested, the Court did not decide guilt in any of them, and the detenu is presumed innocent in those cases. Preventive detention is not a punishment for past offences but a measure to prevent future acts prejudicial to public order.
What the judgment shows
Delay in disposing of a detenu’s representation is among the most common grounds on which preventive detention is struck down, since the constitutional safeguard under Article 22 demands prompt consideration. This judgment shows the other side of that rule: where the State places on record a day-by-day account of what happened, and the explanation is not unreasonable, a court may accept it even for a delay running to several weeks.
It also confirms that a detaining authority need not be shown the bail application itself where the bail order has been taken into account.
Case Title: S. Preethi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [Writ Petition No. 14966 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar, Andhra Pradesh High Court
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate D. Purnachandra Reddy for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader Akula Venkata Sai Jagadeesh for the respondents