Without a pending bail plea or comparable co-accused bail, likelihood of release cannot sustain detention.

The petitioner, the detenu’s father, challenged the Commissioner of Police’s detention order dated 2 June 2026, which classified his son, Koodalingam alias Vijay, 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 and that the detaining authority had nevertheless inferred a likelihood of release by referring to another case.

The State opposed the petition.

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

Whether the detention order could stand where the authority relied on another case without disclosing facts demonstrating that it was sufficiently similar to support the inference of likely release on bail.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review and set aside an unlawful detention order.

Under the principles stated in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and reiterated in Alagu v. State of Tamil Nadu, a person already in custody may be preventively detained on the basis of an anticipated release on bail only where cogent material supports a real possibility of release; ordinarily, a pending bail application is required, although a similarly situated co-accused’s grant of bail may provide a basis for that inference.

If the authority relies on bail granted in an allegedly similar case, it must disclose sufficient details to show the relevant similarity; a bare assertion is ipse dixit and cannot sustain detention.

The Court also relied on the principle that the authority must have reliable material for its satisfaction that release is likely (Union of India v. Paul Manickam).

The detenu had filed no bail application, and the detaining authority’s reliance on another case was not accompanied by facts demonstrating that the case was sufficiently similar to support a reasonable inference that the detenu would be released on bail.

Applying the authorities discussed in Alagu, the Court held that the record contained no cogent material for the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction on the likelihood of release.

Its conclusion was therefore a mere ipse dixit, vitiating the detention order.

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