Preventive detention cannot rest on an unsupported inference that a jailed person will obtain bail.

The petitioner, the detenu’s mother, challenged the District Collector and District Magistrate’s order dated 12 May 2026, which detained her son, Dhanasankar, as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner contended that the detenu had not applied for bail, but the detaining authority had nevertheless concluded—by relying on another case—that he was likely to be released on bail.

Whether the detaining authority could find a real possibility of the detenu’s release on bail when he had filed no bail application.

Whether reliance on bail granted in another case, without disclosing facts showing that the case was materially similar, supplied cogent material for that conclusion.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review the legality of detention through a habeas corpus petition, and Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 defines the category of “Goonda” under which the detenu was detained.

Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, which discussed Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Huidrom Konungjao Singh, and Union of India v. Paul Manickam, the Court applied the principle that a person already in custody may be preventively detained on the basis of an anticipated release on bail only where that apprehension is supported by reliable, cogent material.

Ordinarily, a pending bail application may support a real possibility of release; absent one, the authority may rely on a similarly situated co-accused having been granted bail, but must provide details demonstrating the relevant similarity. A bald assertion or reliance on bail in an unrelated case is insufficient.

The detenu had filed no bail application, and the detaining authority relied on another case without disclosing facts establishing that it was sufficiently similar to support an inference that the detenu was likely to obtain bail.

Applying the principles set out in Alagu, the Court found no cogent material underlying the authority’s subjective satisfaction that the detenu would be released. That satisfaction was therefore a mere ipse dixit and could not sustain the detention order.

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