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

The petitioner, the mother of Balasivi, challenged his preventive detention as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

She contended that he had not applied for bail and that the detaining authority nevertheless concluded there was a real possibility of his release, relying on another case without disclosing facts showing its similarity.

The Court considered the detention order and the materials on record.

1. Whether the detaining authority had cogent material to conclude that the detenu, who had not filed a bail application, was likely to be released on bail.

2. Whether the detention order could stand where the authority relied on another case without disclosing facts demonstrating its similarity to the detenu’s case.

Under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, a person may be preventively detained as a “Goonda,” subject to the legal requirements governing detention.

A detention order concerning a person already in custody requires the authority to be aware of the custody and to have reliable material supporting a real possibility of release on bail and the likelihood of prejudicial activity upon release; detention must also be considered essential to prevent that activity (*Union of India v. Paul Manickam*, as discussed at pp. 7–8).

Ordinarily, where no bail application is pending, there is no real likelihood of release; an exception may arise where a similarly situated co-accused in the same case has been granted bail, but the relevant details must be disclosed.

A bare assertion that bail has been granted in “similar cases” is insufficient (*Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu* and *Huidrom Konungjao Singh*, quoted at pp. 4–6).

A satisfaction unsupported by cogent material is vitiated, and subsequent events cannot cure that defect (*Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu*, discussed at pp. 3–8).

The detenu had filed no bail application, and the detaining authority did not provide facts showing that the other case on which it relied was sufficiently similar to support an inference that the detenu was likely to obtain bail.

The Court therefore found no cogent material underlying the authority’s subjective satisfaction; its conclusion was a mere *ipse dixit*.

Applying the principles set out in *Alagu*, *Rekha* and *Huidrom Konungjao Singh*, the Court held that the asserted possibility of release could not sustain the detention order.

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