The petitioner Dunga Kumari filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the preventive detention of her husband Dunga Manikyam under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988, which was ordered on the basis of six criminal cases involving large quantities of ganja. The petitioner's sole contention was that in the sixth case (Cr.No.42/2025), the detenu was already in judicial custody on the date of the detention order, yet the detaining authority failed to record its satisfaction regarding the real possibility of his release on bail and the likelihood of his indulging in prejudicial activity upon release — a mandatory requirement under settled Supreme Court law. The State argued that even if Ground No.6 was defective, the detention order could stand on the remaining five grounds by virtue of Section 6 of the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. The court, relying on Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya and Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, found that the detaining authority had indeed failed to record the requisite triple satisfaction regarding the sixth ground. The judgment as reproduced ends mid-analysis, but the court's reasoning clearly indicates the detention order on Ground No.6 suffered from material illegality.