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

The petitioner, the detenu Arunkumar’s mother, challenged the District Magistrate’s detention order dated 11 June 2026, which classified him as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

She contended that Arunkumar had not applied for bail and that the detaining authority nevertheless inferred, by reference to another case, that he was likely to be released on bail.

The High Court considered whether that inference had a sufficient evidentiary basis.

Whether the detaining authority could reasonably conclude that the detenu was likely to be released on bail when he had not filed a bail application.

Whether reliance on another case, without disclosing facts demonstrating its material similarity, provided cogent material to support that conclusion.

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the statutory basis for classifying a person as a “Goonda”.

Under the principles discussed in Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 976, and the Supreme Court authorities it considered, a real possibility of release on bail generally requires a pending bail application; an exception may arise where a similarly situated co-accused in the same case has been granted bail, but the relevant details must support the asserted similarity.

A bare assertion that bail was granted in similar or other cases is insufficient. More generally, preventive detention of a person in custody requires the authority to have reliable material supporting a real possibility of release and the other conditions for detention.

The detenu had not filed a bail application, and the detaining authority relied on another case without disclosing facts showing that it was sufficiently similar to support a reasonable inference that the detenu would obtain bail.

Applying the principles in Alagu and the authorities quoted there, the Court held that the asserted likelihood of release rested on no cogent material and amounted to a mere ipse dixit.

The subjective satisfaction underlying the detention order was therefore vitiated.

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