Preventive detention is invalid absent cogent material showing a real likelihood of release on bail.

The petitioner, father of Balamurugan, challenged the detention order dated 29 April 2026 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, under 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”).

Balamurugan, aged about 19 years, had been detained as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Act.

The petitioner contended that Balamurugan had not filed any bail application and that the detaining authority nevertheless concluded that he was likely to be released on bail by relying on an allegedly similar case.

The relied-upon case concerned a different crime number from 2024 and did not involve a co-accused in the ground case.

The Habeas Corpus Petition sought quashing of the detention order and Balamurugan’s release.

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 a different case, involving neither a co-accused nor adequately disclosed comparable facts, constituted cogent material for the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.

Whether the detenu was entitled to release upon the detention order being found invalid for want of a legally sustainable satisfaction regarding the likelihood of release on bail.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a habeas corpus proceeding and examined the detention under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

It applied the principle that preventive detention of a person already in custody requires reliable and cogent material showing, first, a real possibility of release on bail and, second, the likelihood of prejudicial activity upon release, as stated in Union of India v. Paul Manickam.

Under Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, where no bail application is pending, likelihood of release may ordinarily be inferred only where a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail; details of the comparable bail order must be disclosed, otherwise the satisfaction is mere ipse dixit.

Huidrom Konungjao Singh further establishes that bail granted to a person in an unrelated case cannot justify an inference that the detenu is likely to obtain bail.

Rajesh Gulati holds that a subsequent grant of bail cannot cure a detention order that was unsupported by cogent material when originally passed.

The Court also relied on Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, which reiterated these principles.

The detenu had not filed a bail application, and therefore there was no pending proceeding evidencing a real possibility of his release.

The exception recognised in Rekha—reliance on bail granted to a similarly placed co-accused—was unavailable because the detaining authority relied on a different crime registered in 2024, not on bail granted to a co-accused in the ground case.

Further, the detention materials did not disclose sufficient facts demonstrating that the relied-upon case was genuinely comparable.

Accordingly, the authority lacked cogent material to form the required subjective satisfaction that Balamurugan was likely to be released on bail.

The satisfaction was therefore a mere ipse dixit, rendering the detention order legally invalid.

The detention order in No.70/BBCDEFGISSSV/2026 dated 29 April 2026 was set aside because the detaining authority’s conclusion regarding the likelihood of release on bail was unsupported by cogent material.

Balamurugan was directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.