Detention order is invalid absent cogent material showing a real likelihood of release on bail.

The petitioner, mother of Esakkimuthu alias Kombaiah, challenged the detention order dated 29 April 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (“Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”), classifying the detenu as a “Goonda”.

The detenu was in custody in connection with the ground case, but had not filed any bail application. Nevertheless, the detaining authority relied upon another case to conclude that there was a real possibility of his release on bail.

The petitioner contended that the reliance on the other case did not provide a legally sufficient basis for such satisfaction.

Whether the detention order was legally sustainable when the detenu had not filed any bail application and there was no pending application indicating a real possibility of his release on bail.

Whether reliance on bail granted in another case, unrelated to a co-accused in the ground case and unsupported by particulars demonstrating factual similarity, constituted cogent material for the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.

The Court applied Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, under which a person may be detained as a “Goonda” only upon a valid and legally sustainable subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

It relied principally on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976 : (2026) SCC 976, which reaffirmed that preventive detention of a person already in custody requires reliable material establishing both a real possibility of release on bail and the likelihood of prejudicial activity upon release.

Following Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that, where no bail application is pending, a likelihood of release may ordinarily be inferred only where a similarly situated co-accused in the same case has been granted bail, and the details of such bail order must be disclosed; a bare assertion is mere ipse dixit.

Relying also on Huidrom Konungjao Singh, the Court held that bail granted to a person in an unrelated case cannot, by itself, establish the likelihood of the detenu’s release on bail.

The Court further applied Rajesh Gulati and Union of India v. Paul Manickam, holding that the satisfaction must be supported by cogent material existing when the detention order was passed and cannot be retrospectively validated by a subsequent grant of bail.

The Court found that the detenu had not filed any bail application and that no bail application was pending; consequently, there was no immediate material indicating a real possibility of his release on bail.

The bail order relied upon by the detaining authority related neither to a co-accused in the ground case nor to a case whose factual circumstances had been shown to be sufficiently similar.

The detaining authority had also failed to disclose the facts of the allegedly similar case so as to demonstrate that the detenu could reasonably benefit from the precedent.

In the absence of a pending bail application or a bail order in favour of a similarly placed co-accused in the same case, the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail was unsupported by cogent material.

The Court therefore characterised the recorded satisfaction as a mere ipse dixit, vitiating the detention order.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, the detention order in No.69/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 29 April 2026 was set aside, and Esakkimuthu alias Kombaiah was directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.