"Goonda" set out in Section 2(g) of the Act. The District Collector has also opined that there is every possibility of the detenu repeating his actions and causing disturbance to the public order and that it would be appropriate to detain the detenu to ensure that further offences are not committed. 5. This order is challenged, by the petitioner, on the ground that, the crimes 1 to 7 and 10, enumerated in the order of the detention, had been compromised, while he had been given anticipatory bail or bail in all the other complaints except Crime No.2 of 2025 which is listed at No. 15 in the grounds of detention. The petitioner contends that the order of detention does not refer to the grant of bail in all these cases nor does the order of detention set out any consideration of the detaining authority, as to the likelihood of the detenu being released. The petitioner, more specifically would contend that. a duty was cast on the detaining authority to go into the question of whether there was likelihood of release of the detenu in these cases, as that is the primary requirement in any order of detention passed against a person, who is in judicial custody. The petitioner would rely upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.09.2025 in W.P.No.932 of 2025 in case of Cheemparthi Salma v. The State of AP and others. 6. The learned Government Pleader, relying upon the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority would contend that the long list of cases would clearly shows the proclivity of the detenu to engage in crime and that these crimes are of serious nature involving offences under NDPS Act as well as violence being perpetrated on various people. Learned Government Pleader
