ORDER : (Harinath N., J.) : The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide RC.No.MAGL1/1660/2023, dt.27.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.640 General Administration (SPL[LAW AND ORDER]) department, dt.26.03.2024. 2. The petitioner is the wife of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 27.01.2024. The 1st respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.640, dated 26.03.2024. The detenu was involved in the following 19 cases. S.No. Crime No. Police Station Offences under Sections 1. Crime No.4 of 2009 Dated 30.01.2009 Kanaganapalli Police Station Under Section. 324, 427 r/w.34 IPC 2. Crime No.11 of 2009 Dated 26.02.2009 Roddam Police Station Under Section 395 IPC 3. Crime No.79 o 2010 Dated 01.07.2010 Dharmavaram Rural Police Station Under Section 341, 380, 457 IPC 4. Crime No.11 of 2011 Dated 18.02.2011 Putlur Police Station Under Section 457, 380 IPC 5. Crime No.38 of 2011 Dated 02.06.2011 Dharmavaram Rural Police Station Under Section 395 IPC 6. Crime No.43 of 2011 Dated 30.05.2011 Rapthadu Police Station Under Section 397 IPC 7. Crime No.82 of 2012 Dated 01.05.2011 Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Under Section 107 IPC 8. Crime No.50 of 2019 Dated 30.05.2011 Rapthadu Police Station Under Section 107 IPC 9. Crime No.351 of 2019 Dated 26.10.2019 Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Under Section 325 IPC 10. Crime No.361 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Under Section 107 IPC 11. Crime No.226 of 2020 Dated 23.07.2020 Bathalapalli Police Station Under Section 420, 406 r/w.34 IPC 12. Crime No.303 of 2021 Dated 21.11.2021 Bathalapalli Police Station Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act. 13. Crime No.677 of 2021 Dated 15.12.2021 Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Under Section 341, 323, 506 IPC 14. Crime No.53 of 2022 Dated 01.04.2022 Dharmavaram Rural Police Station Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act 15. Crime No.19 of 2022 Dated 18.10.2022 Dharmavaram II Town Police Station Under Section 110 (e) Cr.P.C. 16. Crime No.34 of 2022 Dated 01.12.2022 Dharmavaram II Town Police Station Under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC 17. Crime No.83 of 2022 Dated 07.04.2022 Gorantla Police Station Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act and Section 34(a) AP Excise Act 18. Crime No.97 of 2023 Dated 27.06.2023 Dharmavaram Rural Police Station Under Section 354, 448, 427, 323 IPC 19. Crime No.93 of 2023 Dated 12.08.2023 Dharmavaram II Town Police Station Under Section 354 (b), 427 r/w.34 IPC. 3. Crime No.83 of 2022 Dated 07.04.2022 Gorantla Police Station Under Section 9(1) AP Gaming Act and Section 34(a) AP Excise Act 18. Crime No.97 of 2023 Dated 27.06.2023 Dharmavaram Rural Police Station Under Section 354, 448, 427, 323 IPC 19. Crime No.93 of 2023 Dated 12.08.2023 Dharmavaram II Town Police Station Under Section 354 (b), 427 r/w.34 IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sponsoring authority has suppressed the vital information to the detaining authority. The details pertaining to the bails granted in 15 out of 19 cases registered. The bail orders were not furnished to the detaining authority. 4. It is also stated that out of 19 cases two cases do not have any proximity between the said incidents. The 7th incident is alleged to have occurred in the year 2012 and the 8th incident is said to have occurred in the year 2019. The detention order is passed without application of the standard safeguards. 5. It is also submitted that four cases were bound over cases and they could not have been shown as reason for passing the order of detention. It is also submitted that out of the 19 cases registered against the detenu, nine cases ended in acquittal/compromise before the Lok Adalat. These facts were not placed before the detaining authority. 6. It is also the stand of the petitioner that order of preventive detention and the material relied by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu within the prescribed time. 7. The State in their counter have narrated the details of all cases and their details which were registered against the detenu. 8. It is also submitted that the order of detention was passed on 27.01.2024 and the approval was accorded on 04.02.2024. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 19.02.2024. The detenu failed to approach the Advisory Board and no representation was submitted by the detenu for reviewing the order of detention. 9. It is also stated that the order of detention must be proximate to the last crime committed by the detenu. It is stated that the detenu was a habitual offender and that he was involved in crimes one after the other without mending his ways. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the composite High Court at Hyderabad passed in the matter of Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. It is stated that the detenu was a habitual offender and that he was involved in crimes one after the other without mending his ways. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the composite High Court at Hyderabad passed in the matter of Vasanthu Sumalatha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/AP/0602/2015, wherein, at paragraph 7, it was held as follows ; “7. The Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5), and the dual obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive detention, are twofold: (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention, (M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India; Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra; Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India), i.e., to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which, on being considered, may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds, is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground, among other clear and definite grounds, is an infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to approach the Court for relief. The reason why the inclusion of even a simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu’s constitutional right is that the Court is precluded from adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the grounds, and it cannot substitute its objective decision for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K”). 11. The subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention would depend on case to case basis. The authority passing the order of detention has been ensure that the procedural safeguards before passing the detention order ought to be followed scrupulously. 12. Preventive detention is a method of deterring an antisocial element from disturbing the peace and fabric of the society. The subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention would depend on case to case basis. The authority passing the order of detention has been ensure that the procedural safeguards before passing the detention order ought to be followed scrupulously. 12. Preventive detention is a method of deterring an antisocial element from disturbing the peace and fabric of the society. However, the extreme action on part of the State denying the fundamental right in the form of detaining him for a considerable period of time has to be exercised by following the necessary safeguards. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure peace in the society and strive towards a crime free society. The State has an equal responsibility of protecting the citizens’ fundamental rights. The antisocial elements definitely infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens in the society to a large extent. 13. Passing an order of detention without appropriate grounds and without reference to the conduct of the detenu would have to be set aside. The detention order must enlist the specific reasons for detaining the detenu which withstand the judicial review and oversight. 14. The officers concerned in proposing and issuing orders of detention are the instrumentalities of the state. It is essential for them to prepare a proper check-list and review each case of detention on its individual merits before proposing the issuance of a detention order. It is a bounden duty of the officer proposing to the competent authority to pass an order of detention against anyone to submit to such authority all and relevant material relating to the offence(s) registered against the proposed detenu. 15. It is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to ensure that they consider the material available in detail and pass necessary orders by incorporating the relevant aspects imposing the order of detention. 16. The preamble of the AP Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 is as follows ; “An act to provide for preventive detention of bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land grabbers for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Whereas public order is adversely affected every now and then by the dangerous activities of certain persons, who are known as bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land-grabbers. Whereas public order is adversely affected every now and then by the dangerous activities of certain persons, who are known as bootleggers, dacoits, drug offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and land-grabbers. And whereas having regard to the resources and influence of the persons by whom, the large scale on which, and the manner in which the dangerous activities are being clandestinely organised and carried on in violation of law by them, as bootleggers, dacoits, drug-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders or land-grabbers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and particularly in its urban areas, it is necessary to have a special law in the State of Andhra Pradesh to provide for preventive detention of these six classes of persons and for matters connected therewith”. 17. The Act is enacted keeping in view the necessity of keeping the dangerous elements in the society under detention to deter them from disrupting the public order. However, the purpose of the Act is defeated by the lethargic attitude of the officers concerned in completely disregarding the prescribed safeguards which ought to have been followed before passing the detention orders. 18. The order of detention which is under challenge in the writ petition is evidently passed without considering the likelihood of release of detenu from judicial custody. It is evident that the detaining authority has not detailed the acquittal/Lok Adalat compromise in various cases. A bald statement is referred in the order of detention as follows : “It is thus that you are a habitual criminal and dangerous and desperate person and you are so hardened and became incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of penal code will not have deterrent effect over your violent acts and you are likely to repeat such violent acts in future and as such you have to be kept under control. In the circumstances PREVENTIVE DETENTION is only the precautionary measure to avert the situation and this preventive detention is always the precautionary measure and it is based on reasonable prognosis of your future behaviour based on your past conduct found in the light of the above circumstances. From the nature of these incidents inference can reasonably be drawn that you would be likely to repeat such acts unless detained under preventive detention”. 19. This cannot be considered as subjective satisfaction when the details of the acquittal/Lok Adalat compromise in various cases and other factors are missing in the detention order. From the nature of these incidents inference can reasonably be drawn that you would be likely to repeat such acts unless detained under preventive detention”. 19. This cannot be considered as subjective satisfaction when the details of the acquittal/Lok Adalat compromise in various cases and other factors are missing in the detention order. The detention order has to be set aside. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Champion R. Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and another, 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3673 (S.C.), the order of detention vide proceedings RC.No.MAGL1/1660/2023, dt.27.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.640 General Administration (SPL[LAW AND ORDER]) department, dt.26.03.2024 deserves to be set aside. The other grounds raised by the petitioner need not be gone into as the detention order is found legally defective on the aspect of subjective satisfaction. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention vide proceedings RC.No.MAGL1/1660/2023, dt.27.01.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.640 General Administration (SPL[LAW AND ORDER]) department, dt.26.03.2024 is hereby set aside and consequently the detenu by name Anke Naresh, S/o.late A.Narayana shall be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.