A bail-release prediction unsupported by cogent material vitiates preventive detention.

The petitioner, mother of Azhagusundaram, challenged his preventive-detention order dated 1 June 2026, by which the District Collector and District Magistrate, Sivagangai, classified him as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner contended that her son had not applied for bail, yet the detaining authority had inferred that he was likely to be released on bail by relying on another case.

Whether the detaining authority could validly conclude that the detenu was likely to be released on bail when he had not filed a bail application.

Whether reliance on another case, without disclosing facts showing that it was sufficiently similar, provided cogent material for the authority’s subjective satisfaction.

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the statutory basis for classifying a person as a “Goonda”.

Under the principles discussed in Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, and the authorities it considers—including Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Huidrom Konungjao Singh, Rajesh Gulati, and Union of India v. Paul Manickam—a person already in custody may be preventively detained on the basis of a likelihood of release on bail only where that likelihood rests on cogent material. Ordinarily, a pending bail application is required; where none is pending, a relevant exception may arise if a similarly situated co-accused in the same case has been granted bail. A bare reference to bail in another case, without particulars establishing its similarity, is insufficient.

The detenu had not filed a bail application, and the detaining authority relied on another case without disclosing facts demonstrating that it was sufficiently similar to support a reasonable inference that the detenu would obtain bail.

Applying the principles in Alagu and the precedents discussed there, the Court held that the authority’s conclusion lacked cogent material and amounted to a mere ipse dixit. Its subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of release on bail was therefore vitiated.

It directed that Azhagusundaram be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with another case.