JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1024/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.1823 of 2012 Section 302 IPC 2. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.1412 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC 3. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.832 of 2013 Sections 341, 323, 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station in Crime No.1445 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 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 has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a variation in translation of the bail order dated 28.03.2013, granted to an accused in the similar case annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the booklet and comparison of English version of bail order dated 28.03.2013, granted to the similarly placed accused, annexed at Page No.173 of the booklet with the Tamil translation would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following: "1. Heard. Reply received from the prosecution. The main objection of the prosecution is that the accused, if released, would involve in similar nature of offences. The petitioner / accused is alleged to have committed offences u/s.384 and 506(ii) IPC.” the Tamil version informs thus, (TAMIL) 6. While the English version informs of the following: "1. Heard. Reply received from the prosecution. The main objection of the prosecution is that the accused, if released, would involve in similar nature of offences. The petitioner / accused is alleged to have committed offences u/s.384 and 506(ii) IPC.” the Tamil version informs thus, (TAMIL) 6. On verification of the booklet at Page No.175, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., bail order of similarly placed accused, wherein the sentence “the accused, if released, would involve in similar nature of offences” is not found translated in vernacular language. When there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nagaraj, S/o.Ganesan, made in Memo No.1024/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.