JUDGMENT (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus is filed on behalf of Karanam Srinivas @ Rajendra Nagar Vasu @ Vasu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana, by his wife. 3. Respondent No.2- Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) & (2) read with Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, “1986 Act”), ordered detention of the husband of the petitioner by an order dated 18.09.2020. 4. 15 grounds were cited as grounds for detention and they all relate to registration of cases against the husband of the petitioner. 5. It is stated, amongst others, that his illegal activities are causing widespread danger to public safety and creating a feeling of insecurity among the general public in the area of I Town (L&O) and Bommuru Police Station. 6. The order of detention dated 18.09.2020 was confirmed by the appropriate Government on 09.11.2020. 7. Mr. Y. Sudhakar submits that the detention order cannot be sustained in law as on the date of passing of the detention order, the husband of the petitioner was in judicial custody. It is contended by him that though there may not be a bar for passing an order of detention while a person is in jail, it should satisfy the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 253 . His contention is that no satisfaction is recorded in the order of detention that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, therefore, the order of detention was passed on total non-application of mind. 8. Mr. Syed Khader Masthan does not dispute that on the date of passing of the order of detention, the detenu was in jail. 9. In the context of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to take note of paragraph 10 of Champion R. Sangma (supra), wherein the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128 , were referred to. 9. In the context of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to take note of paragraph 10 of Champion R. Sangma (supra), wherein the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128 , were referred to. 10. The said paragraph reads as follows: “10. There are three such factors which were restated in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India: (SCC pp. 140-41, para 13) “13. From the catena of decisions referred to above it seems clear to us that even in the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition, to question it before a higher court. What this Court stated in Ramesh Yadav was that ordinarily a detention order should not be passed merely to pre-empt or circumvent enlargement on bail in cases which are essentially criminal in nature and can be dealt with under the ordinary law. It seems to us well settled that even in a case where a person is in custody, if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand, resort can be had to the law of preventive detention. This seems to be quite clear from the case law discussed above and there is no need to refer to the High Court decisions to which our attention was drawn since they do not hold otherwise. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there was no valid and compelling reason for passing the impugned orders of detention because the detenus were in custody.” 11. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that there was no valid and compelling reason for passing the impugned orders of detention because the detenus were in custody.” 11. Perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would go to show that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; 2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; 3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. This is what is called the triple requirement test. 12. In the instant case, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no satisfaction has been recorded that the detaining authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. No material was placed before the detaining authority to show that efforts had been made by the detenu to get himself released on bail. 13. In view of what is discussed above, the detention order as well as the consequential orders cannot be sustained in law. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to release the detenu, namely, Karanam Srinivas @ Rajendra Nagar Vasu @ Vasu, S/o Late Venkata Ramana, if he is not required in any other case. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.