A bare prediction of renewed bail after rejection cannot sustain preventive detention.

The petitioner, wife of Malikbhadsha, challenged his detention as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The detention order was made on 8 June 2026.

The detenu’s bail application in the ground case had been dismissed on 9 June 2026.

The petitioner argued that the detaining authority’s conclusion that he could obtain bail by filing another application was unsupported and showed non-application of mind.

The High Court considered whether the authority had a sufficient basis for its assessment of the likelihood of release on bail.

1. Whether, after the detenu’s bail application in the ground case had been dismissed, the detaining authority had cogent material to conclude that there was a real possibility of his release on bail through a further application.

2. Whether the detention order was vitiated where the authority did not disclose facts of a similar case capable of supporting its assessment of the likelihood of bail.

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the statutory basis for classifying a person as a “Goonda”; the detention order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Applying Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, the Court reiterated that preventive detention of a person already in custody requires cogent material supporting the authority’s satisfaction that release on bail is a real possibility. A bare assertion of likely bail is insufficient; where reliance is placed on similar bail cases, relevant details must be disclosed to show that the cases are genuinely comparable.

The judgment also drew on the principles in Rekha, Huidrom Konungjao Singh, Rajesh Gulati, and Union of India v. Paul Manickam, as recounted in Alagu.

The detenu’s bail application in the ground case had been dismissed, yet the authority predicted that he could obtain bail by filing another application. The Court found no other material supporting that prediction and no disclosed facts of a sufficiently similar case from which the authority could reasonably infer likely release.

Applying the requirement of cogent material, it held that the authority’s satisfaction was a mere ipse dixit and reflected non-application of mind.

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