Judgment :- N.V. Ramana, J. The petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the detenu, namely Gone Venkatadri Naidu, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, has filed this writ petition praying this Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty forthwith, by declaring the order of detention dated 08.08.2012 passed by respondent, as confirmed by respondent No.2, vide orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 4391, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 21.09.2012, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa, YSR District, informed respondent No.1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Detaining Authority’) that the detenu over a period of six years was involved in illicit felling of red sanders, smuggling them to secret and unknown places in India and abroad. The detenu along with other accused, is involved in five forest offences, namely O.R. Nos. 10/2005-06, dated 03.06.2005 and 16/200506, dated 12.07.2005 of Sanipriya Range, Rajampeta Division, O.R. No. 31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012 of Vempalli Range, Kadapa Division and O.R. Nos. 63/2012, dated 02.08.2012 and 65/2012-13, dated 04.08.2012 of Kadapa Range, Kadapa Division, which were registered against him and others for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 29 and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and the provisions of Sections 378 and 379 I.P.C. The alleged illegal activities of the detenu, is causing willful destruction of red sanders trees, an endangered species; damage to public property; depletion of green cover; loss of national wealth. This apart, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. The forest laws and the ordinary penal laws under which the detenu is being prosecuted are not sufficient to deal with his alleged illegal activities. Therefore, to prevent the detenu from commission of the illegal activities, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) and (2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbing Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Preventive Detention Act’), vide order dated 08.08.2012, ordered the detention of the detenu in prison. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the Advisory Board, respondent No.2-Government, vide G.O. Rt. No. 3798, dated 17.08.2012, confirmed the order of detention. Hence, questioning the said order of detention, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cases registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P. Forest Act and the Indian Penal Code, which formed the basis for respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, to pass the order of detention, are false. On 08.08.2012, when respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, passed the order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody and the bail applications moved by him in two cases, were dismissed on that day. To demonstrate this, he submitted that in O.R. No.16/2005-06, dated 12.07.2005, the detenu was arrested and later released on bail; in O.R. No.10/2005-06, dated 03.06.2005 and O.R. No.31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012, the detenu has not even been arrested; The anticipatory bail application moved by the detenu in O.R. No. 31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012 was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa; in O.R. Nos.63/2012-13, dated 02.08.2012 and 65/2012-12, dated 04.08.2012, the applications in Crl.M.P. Nos.1182 and 1686 of 2012, moved by the detenu for his release on bail, were dismissed by separate orders dated 08.08.2012, passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. As the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in two cases and the bail applications moved by him in the said two cases having been dismissed, the possibility of his coming out of jail in the near future and indulging in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society, does not arise. However, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, without considering this aspect of the matter, has passed the order of dtention, stating that it was reported that the detenu has moved bail applications in all the cases. This reflects that respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, before passing the order of detention, has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the possibility of the detenu coming out of jail in the near future, and indulging in prejudicial activities, and therefore, the order of detention, suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction. This reflects that respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, before passing the order of detention, has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the possibility of the detenu coming out of jail in the near future, and indulging in prejudicial activities, and therefore, the order of detention, suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction. He further submitted that even though the detenu was arrested on 29.07.2012, the forest officials did not produce him before the Court till 05.08.2012 on which day, he fell ill. He submitted that the fact that the forest officials were predetermined to pass order of detention against the detenu, is evident from (1) statement made by the detenu before the Magistrate on 05.08.2012, wherein he stated that the forest officials harassed and pressurized him to make confession as to the commission of the offence and if he fails to do so, they would detain him under the Preventive Detention Act and; (2) the Court having taken cognizance of the said statement of the detenu, directed the Forest Range Officer concerned to give his explanation by 09.08.2012. He further submitted that the offences in O.R. Nos. 10/2005-06, dated 03.06.2005 and 16/2005-06, dated 12.07.2005 of Sanipaya Range, Rajampet Division, are stale incidents and they cannot form basis for respondent No.1-Detaining Authority to pass the order of detention. Thus he prayed that the order of detention passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, namely the Collector and District Magistrate filed counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents, reiterating the stand taken by the respondents in their counter submitted that the detenu is habitually indulging in illicit felling of red sanders trees by trespassing into forest area, smuggling and transporting them out of the reserved forest owned by the State; his activities are not only dangerous to the rare species of red sanders, but also causing damage to the pristine forest wealth; his activities are also prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, peace, tranquility and social harmony; and for commission of such illegal activities, the detenu is punishable under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu has committed as many as five offences over a period of three years. As the forest laws and the ordinary penal laws under which he is being prosecuted are unable to curb his illegal activities, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, to prevent the detenu from commission of such offences, has passed the order of detention, invoking the Preventive Detention Law, which was confirmed by respondent No.2-Government. She further submitted that even though when the order of detention was passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with two cases and the bail applications moved by him in the said two cases were dismissed, but the same by itself, does not bar the Detaining Authority, to pass an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Law, if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that there is every possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the near future, and upon such release, the detenu relapsing into commission of similar such offences and act in a manner prejudicial to public order or law and order, and therefore, there is every need to detain him under the Preventive Detention Law. Hence, she prayed that the order of detention, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, be upheld and the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents. In the light of the arguments advanced by the respective parties, the question that arises for consideration, in this writ petition is: Whether the order of detention passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, suffers from lack of subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, because at the time when the order of detention was passed, the detenu was in judicial custody and bail applications moved by him in the two cases in which he was arrested were dismissed? This Court in W.P. No. 12340 of 2012, by order dated 28.09.2012, having considered the above question, in the light of submissions advanced by the respective parties and the law governing the preventive detention, held as follows: Since the order of detention was passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, while the detenu was in judicial custody and that too when he did not make any application for his release on bail, and in such a situation, the possibility of his being released on bail, does not arise. And considering the fact that the validity of order of detention, passed while the detenu was in judicial custody and when no application for his release on bail was pending, was already considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rekhav. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held that “if no bail application is pending, there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and therefore, the order of detention would be illegal”, and the law laid down therein, having been consistently followed by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments in YummanOngbi Lembi v. State of Manipur and MunagalaYadamma v. State of A.P., and in a very recent judgment in K. Nageswara Naidu v. Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, we are of the considered opinion that the order of detention passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction, and as such, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we answer issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. In the instant case, it is alleged that the detenu, is involved in five forest offences, which are alleged to have been committed by him within a period of six years. In O.R. No.16/2005-06, dated 12.07.2005, the detenu was arrested and later released on bail; in O.R. No.10/2005-06, dated 03.06.2005 and O.R. No.31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012, the detenu was not even arrested. In O.R. No.16/2005-06, dated 12.07.2005, the detenu was arrested and later released on bail; in O.R. No.10/2005-06, dated 03.06.2005 and O.R. No.31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012, the detenu was not even arrested. The anticipatory bail application moved by the detenu in O.R. No. 31/2012-13, dated 29.07.2012 was dismissed as not pressed, by order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa; in O.R. Nos.63/2012-13, dated 02.08.2012 and 65/2012-12, dated 04.08.2012, the applications in Crl.M.P. Nos.1182 and 1686 of 2012, moved by the detenu, for their release on bail, were dismissed by separate orders dated 08.08.2012, passed by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. While, the detenu is in judicial custody, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, has passed the order of detention on 08.08.2012, which subsequently, based on the recommendations of the Advisory Board, was confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, by orders dated 21.09.2012. In the order of detention, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, has noted that the detenu has moved bail petitions in all the five cases. However, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, neither in the order of detention nor in the counter filed by him, has mentioned the details of the bail petitions, said to have been moved by the detenu. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the detenu was not arrested in two cases, in one case, he was arrested and released on bail and in connection with two cases, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, he is in judicial custody since 05.08.2012, and the applications moved by him for his release on bail in the said two cases, were dismissed, and this fact, is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In view of the admitted stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the statement recorded by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority in the order of detention that “the detenu moved bail petitions in all the cases”, is false. There is no doubt that the forest offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu, namely willful destruction of red sanders trees, damage to public property, depletion of green cover, loss of national wealth, and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society, are very serious in nature, but the fact remains, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention without application of his mind. Since before passing the order of detention, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has not even bothered to verify as to in how many cases, the detenu was arrested and in how many cases he moved bail applications and in how many cases, he was released on bail and in how many cases the bail applications moved by him were dismissed, we are of the considered opinion that the same suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction. In Rekhav. State of Tamil Nadu, as noted supra, the Apex Court held that “if no bail application is pending, there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and the order of detention would be illegal”. When respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody, and even though he is alleged to be involved in five cases, in one case, he was arrested and already released on bail, in two cases he was not even arrested, the anticipatory bail moved by him in one of the two cases in which he was not arrested was dismissed as withdrawn, the bail applications moved by him in the two cases in which he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, were dismissed. Since the bail applications moved by the detenu in the two cases in which he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody were dismissed, the possibility of his coming out of jail does not arise. However, as respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, without applying his mind to this aspect of the matter, has passed the order of detention, while the detenu is in judicial custody, the same cannot be sustained, and is therefore, liable to be set aside. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition. Consequently, the order of detention dated 08.08.2012, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government by order dated 21.09.2012, is set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No costs. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition. Consequently, the order of detention dated 08.08.2012, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government by order dated 21.09.2012, is set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No costs. While dealing with the matter, this Court noticed that respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, for passing the order of detention against the detenu, inter alia, took into consideration, the following ground: The penal laws have failed to curb his illegal activities; certainly, he is able to manage bails and relief from the courts through his ill-gotten money and will continue indulging in prejudicial activity, which is required to be prevented by a detention order. (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the highlighted portion of the sentence conveys a negative meaning. It conveys the meaning that the detenu in securing bails by managing the Courts with his ill-gotten money. By employing such sentence in the order of detention, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, intended to attribute motives to the Courts. As the said sentence imputed motives to the Judiciary, sought to undermine and scandalize the judicial institution, we directed the Assistant Government Pleader, to explain the intention of respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, who is a responsible officer of the Government, in employing such a sentence, in the order of detention. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that respondent No.1-Detaining Authority employed such a sentence in the order of detention by mistake. However, not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we directed her to bring this fact to the notice of the learned Advocate General and to ask him to appear in the matter and instruct the officers concerned to appear before the Court along with the record. The officers concerned appeared along with the record. The learned Advocate General, appeared for the respondents. When we pointed out to the learned Advocate General about the above sentence employed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, in the order of detention, the learned Advocate General only stated that the language employed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, in the order of detention, is intemperate, and he ought not to have employed such language. The order of detention was passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority on 12.08.2012 and it was confirmed by respondent No.2-Government on 21.09.2012. The petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the order of detention on 04.10.2012. The order of detention was passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority on 12.08.2012 and it was confirmed by respondent No.2-Government on 21.09.2012. The petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the order of detention on 04.10.2012. The writ petition was admitted on 05.10.2012. On that day, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General took notice for the respondents and sought time to file counter. Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority filed the counter on 13.10.2012. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on four occasions. Finally, we heard the matter on 14.11.2012 and reserved it for pronouncement of judgment. Even though during the course of hearing of the matter, the derogatory sentence employed in the order of detention, which imputed motives to the Judiciary, sought to undermine and scandalize the judicial institution, was brought to the notice of respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, it is unfortunate to note that in spite of adjourning the matter on several occasions, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, did not take any steps either to expunge or withdraw the derogatory sentence from the order of detention. However, after we reserved the matter for pronouncement of judgment, the learned Advocate General representing the respondents, made a mention and filed affidavit of respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, sworn to by him on 14.12.2012, stating in para 4 as follows: I submit that in the grounds of detention, a mistake has crept in, with regard to the moving of bail applications by the detenu. Due to inadvertence, it is stated in the grounds of detention that“penal laws failed to curb his illegal activities, certainly he is able to manage bails and relief from the Courts through his ill-gotten money and will continue indulging into a prejudicial activity which is required to be prevented by a detention order”. It is unfortunate to note that“certainly he is able to manage bails and relief from the Courts through his ill-gotten money” crept in due to clerical error and inadvertence. There is no intention to make any derogatory remarks on the Judiciary. I have the highest regard for the judiciary. For the said mistake, I tender my unconditional apology and pray the Hon’ble Court to condone the same. There is no intention to make any derogatory remarks on the Judiciary. I have the highest regard for the judiciary. For the said mistake, I tender my unconditional apology and pray the Hon’ble Court to condone the same. This Court considering the derogatory sentence employed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, thought of initiating contempt proceedings against the officers concerned, but in view of the above affidavit dated 14.12.2012, filed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, tendering his unconditional apology for employing such sentence, and considering the fact that the said sentence is said to have crept in due to clerical error and inadvertence and not with any ill-intention against the Judiciary, we do not wish to proceed further in the matter. However, while accepting the unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, we direct that he should be very careful while orders of detention and in filing affidavits and counter-affidavits before the Courts of Law.