Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.863/2013 dated 31.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Crime No.866 of 2013 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station in Crime No.865 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is variation in the translated version of remand extension order. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order. It is pertinent to note here that the detenu has not moved any bail application in respect of the ground case in Crime No.866 of 2013. While so, the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime number (ground case) without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. While so, the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime number (ground case) without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. Apart from that, in the booklet furnished to the detenu, in the English version of the remand extension order, it has been stated that the accused have been produced on 22.07.2013 and remand was extended till 02.08.2013 and again on 02.08.2013, accused have been produced and remand was extended till 16.08.2013. But in the vernacular version, it has been stated as though the accused have been produced on 22.07.2013 and the remand was extended till 02.08.2013 and thereafter upto 16.08.2013. In the English version of the remand order found at Page No.197, it has been stated thus: “22.07.2013: Accused Produced. Remand extended till 02/08/2013. 02.08.2013: Accused Produced. Remand extended till 16/08/2013.” whereas in the vernacular version of the remand order found at Page No.199, it has been stated as follows: “TAMIL” Therefore, when there is a variation between English and Tamil Version in respect of the same document, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Samson, S/o.Vadivelu, made in BDFGISSV No.863/2013 dated 31.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.