JUDGMENT : C. Nagappan, J. – 1. The wife of the detenu Ramesh @ Parattai Ramesh is the Petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and she has challenged the order of detention passed by the First Respondent, in No.295/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 18.5.2010. 2. The Detaining Authority relied on as many as three adverse cases viz., (1) Crime No.822/2009 on the file of J-8, Neelangarai Police Station; (2) Crime No.711/2009 on the file of J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station; and (3) Crime No.712/2009 on the file of J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station and also the ground case in Crime No.294 of 2010 on the file of J-8, Neelangarai Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 392, 336, 427 read with 397 and 506 (ii), IPC, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was a Goonda as defined under Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Petition. 3. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is the paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detention of English version is missing and the lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority would vitiate the order detention. 4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ganeshmurthy v. State Government, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009 and another, 2007 (2) MLJ (Crl.) 1904 (Mad-NOC). 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor admits that paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention is missing in the English version. 6. The grounds of detention was served on the detenu both in Tamil version as well as in the English version. It is of course true that in the Tamil version, all the paragraphs are available. However, in the English version, paragraph No.4 is missing. It is relevant to point out that paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detention in the present case is vital, since the Detaining Authority has expressed satisfaction with regard to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail only in the said paragraph. However, in the English version, paragraph No.4 is missing. It is relevant to point out that paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detention in the present case is vital, since the Detaining Authority has expressed satisfaction with regard to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail only in the said paragraph. In fact, in the judgment referred above, the Division Bench has observed that missing of one page of English version of grounds of detention cannot be said to be non-prejudicial to the detenu and there is a serious lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority and the order of detention is vitiated. We are in agreement with the view stated therein. 7. In the present case also the lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority in furnishing English version of the grounds of detention with vital paragraph No.4 missing cannot be said to be non-prejudicial to the detenu and the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, dated 18.5.2010, passed by the First Respondent is set aside. The detenu Ramesh @ Parattai Ramesh, son of Murugesan is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his continued custody is required in connection with any other case.