Detention is invalid when bail likelihood relies on an unrelated default-bail order lacking factual similarity.

The second respondent, Commissioner of Police, detained Mohammed Thoufic Dolu as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by order dated 21 June 2026.

The petitioner challenged the order by habeas corpus petition.

The detaining authority relied on an order granting bail in Crl.M.P. No. 7175 of 2023 as a similar case.

The petitioner argued that bail in that case had been granted after 60 days as statutory default bail and was not comparable to the ground case.

1. Whether the detaining authority had cogent material to conclude that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.

2. Whether an order granting statutory default bail in the cited case could support the conclusion that the detenu was likely to obtain bail in the ground case.

Under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, preventive detention as a “Goonda” must rest on a valid exercise of the statutory power.

Where the proposed detenu is in custody, the detaining authority must have reliable material supporting a real possibility of release on bail; a bare assertion or an inadequately explained reference to bail in another case is insufficient.

As discussed through Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Huidrom Konungjao Singh, Rajesh Gulati, and Union of India v. Paul Manickam, the authority must provide sufficient particulars to show that the cited bail case is genuinely comparable; bail granted to another person in an unrelated case does not, without more, establish the detenu’s likelihood of release.

The Court also relied on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, on the requirement for cogent material supporting the likelihood of release on bail.

The authority relied on a bail order where bail had been granted after 60 days, which the Court identified as statutory default bail and therefore not a suitable comparator to the ground case.

The authority also failed to disclose the facts of that case sufficiently to demonstrate that it was similar enough to support a reasonable inference that the detenu would obtain bail.

The Court accordingly found no cogent material underlying the authority’s satisfaction that release on bail was likely; that satisfaction was a mere ipse dixit.

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