Preventive detention requires cogent material supporting a jailed detenu’s likelihood of release on bail.

The petitioner, the detenu’s mother, challenged the Commissioner of Police’s detention order dated 3 June 2026, which classified her son, Baskar, as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

She contended that the detenu had not filed a bail application, yet the detaining authority had inferred that he was likely to be released on bail by relying on another case.

The High Court considered whether that inference was supported by cogent material.

1. 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.

2. Whether reliance on another bail case, without disclosing facts establishing its similarity to the detenu’s case, provided cogent material for the authority’s subjective satisfaction.

Under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, a person may be detained as a “Goonda”; however, where the person is already in custody, a detention order based on a likelihood of release on bail requires reliable material supporting that likelihood.

As explained in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, ordinarily there must be a pending bail application; an exception may arise where a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail, but the relevant details must be disclosed.

Bail granted to an unrelated person in another case does not, without more, establish that the detenu is likely to be released.

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

The detenu had filed no bail application, and the detention order relied on another case without disclosing facts showing that it was sufficiently similar to support an inference that the detenu would obtain bail.

Nor was there cogent material establishing that a similarly situated co-accused had been released on bail.

Applying the principles in Rekha and Alagu, the Court held that the authority’s conclusion was an unsupported ipse dixit, vitiating its subjective satisfaction.

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