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 Memo No. 1022/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 17.09.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 17.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr. No. 310 of 2013 379 IPC @ 379 r/w 411 and 414 IPC 2. M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr. No. 341 of 2013 379 IPC @ 379 r/w 411 and 414 IPC 3. M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr. No. 422 of 2013 379 IPC @ 379 r/w 411 and 414 IPC 4. M-4 Redhills Police Station Cr. No. 1685 of 2013 379 IPC 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 31.08.2013 at 6.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, M4 Redhills Police Station, in Crime No. 1719 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 31.08.2013 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ponneri on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is variation in the translated version of the remand order. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 6. A perusal of the booklet would show that in the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013, it has been stated that free legal aid explained whereas in the vernacular version, the said sentence was omitted. 6. A perusal of the booklet would show that in the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013, it has been stated that free legal aid explained whereas in the vernacular version, the said sentence was omitted. The omission of vital information viz., free legal aid in the vernacular version of the remand order, prevented the detenu from using the free legal aid. In the English version of the remand order dated 01.10.2013 found at Page No. 147 of the booklet, it is stated thus:- "Accused produced at 1.45 p.m. No complaint against police. Grounds and family intimated. Free legal aid explained. Remanded to judicial custody till 13.09.2013." Whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No. 148, it is stated as under:- (TAMIL) The omission of the vital information viz. "Free legal aid explained" in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from using the free legal aid. Since there is variation in the translated version of the remand order in respect of the words in English version "Free legal aid explained" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu is prevented from using the free legal aid. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No. 1022/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 17.09.2013, is set aside. The detenu Vijay, S/o Rambabu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.