Detention is invalid without cogent material showing a jailed detainee is likely to obtain bail.

The petitioner, the mother of Vasanthabalan, 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.

She submitted that Vasanthabalan had not filed a bail application, yet the detaining authority had concluded that he was likely to be released on bail by relying on another case.

The State opposed the petition; the High Court considered whether that conclusion had a sufficient evidentiary basis.

1. 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.

2. Whether reliance on another case, without disclosing facts showing that it was materially similar, supplied cogent material for that conclusion.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may issue habeas corpus relief against unlawful detention. Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 defines “Goonda” for the purposes of the Act.

Where a person is already in custody, preventive detention may be based on an anticipated release on bail only when reliable material supports a real possibility of release and the other requirements for preventive detention are met. Ordinarily, if no bail application is pending, there is no likelihood of release; an exception may arise where a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail, but the relevant details must be disclosed. A bare assertion that bail was granted in a “similar case” is insufficient.

The Court relied on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, which discussed Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, Rajesh Gulati v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Union of India v. Paul Manickam.

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 authorities discussed there, the Court held that the record contained no cogent material supporting the authority’s subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of release. That satisfaction was therefore a mere ipse dixit, and the detention order could not stand.

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