Failure to assess bail likelihood in each pending case vitiates preventive detention.

The second respondent detained P. Esakkimuthu as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by order dated 2 April 2026.

He was in custody in Crime No. 79 of 2026, identified as the adverse case, and Crime No. 184 of 2026, identified as the ground case; bail applications in both cases were pending.

The detention order referred to the possibility of bail in the ground case but did not address bail in the adverse case.

The detenu challenged the order by a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the detaining authority’s failure to consider the possibility of the detenu’s release on bail in the adverse case, while bail applications in both cases were pending, showed non-application of mind and vitiated the detention order.

2. Whether the authority had cogent material to support its satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the statutory basis for classifying a person as a “Goonda”; Article 226 empowers the High Court to review the legality of detention.

A person already in custody may be preventively detained where the authority is aware of the custody, has reliable material supporting a real possibility of release on bail and has reason to believe that, upon release, the person would likely engage in prejudicial activities.

A conclusion about likely release on bail must rest on cogent material; a bare assertion, without relevant particulars or a demonstrated basis for predicting release, is insufficient.

The Court relied on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, which discusses the principles in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Huidrom Konungjao Singh, Rajesh Gulati and Union of India v. Paul Manickam.

The detaining authority addressed only the likelihood of bail in the ground case, although the detenu was also in custody in the adverse case and had a pending bail application there. The omission left the authority’s assessment incomplete.

Further, the order did not disclose facts showing why release on bail in the adverse case was reasonably likely or identify material supporting that conclusion.

Applying the cited principles, the Court held that the satisfaction was unsupported by cogent material and amounted to non-application of mind.

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