The petitioner, wife of detenu Ankem Raja, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge an Order of Preventive Detention passed by the District Collector/Magistrate under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, classifying the detenu as a 'Goonda' on the basis of three criminal cases. The Andhra Pradesh High Court found that the offences in Ground No. 1 (Crime No. 160/2025) did not fall under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the IPC as required by the definition of 'Goonda' under Section 2(g) of the Act, indicating non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The Court further found that in Ground No. 2, the detaining authority had failed to properly consider the bail order granted to the detenu, merely referring to it as a fact without assessing whether the bail conditions were sufficient to prevent further prejudicial activity, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction required for a valid detention order. Relying on coordinate bench decisions including Buddiga Dhana Lakshmi v. State of A.P. and Ponnada Geetha, the Court held that non-consideration of bail orders by the detaining authority is sufficient to invalidate a preventive detention order. The judgment text as provided ends before the final operative order is stated, but the Court's reasoning strongly indicates the detention order was set aside.