Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in BDFGISSV No.664/2013, dated 10.08.2013. 2. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.05.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-6 R.K. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.590/2013 for offence under Section 397 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the detaining authority, while considering the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, relied on a similar case where bail was granted but the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, has wrongly mentioned the name of the Court as II Additional Principal Sessions Court, Chennai instead of High Court, Madras and Crl.M.P.No.21110 of 2010 instead of Crl.O.P.No.21110 of 2010 and such variation would vitiate the subjective satisfaction itself and hence the order of detention is vitiated. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the English version of the grounds of detention are extracted hereunder: “4.............In a similar case registered H-6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.448/2010 registered under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and bail was granted in Crl.M.P.No.21110/10 by the II nd Additional Principal Sessions Court, Chennai on 14.09.2010......” In the vernacular version of the grounds of detention also, the same has been reflected. 6. On verification of the booklet, particularly Page Nos.237 to 239 – both English and vernacular versions of the bail order, it is seen that in the similar case in Crime No.448 of 2010, bail was granted by the High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.21110 of 2010 by order dated 14.09.2010. But in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that bail was granted by II Additional Principal Sessions Court, Chennai instead of High Court, Madras and Crl.M.P.No.21110 of 2010 instead of Crl.O.P.No.21110 of 2010. But in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that bail was granted by II Additional Principal Sessions Court, Chennai instead of High Court, Madras and Crl.M.P.No.21110 of 2010 instead of Crl.O.P.No.21110 of 2010. There is glaring variation in para 4 of the grounds of detention in English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention with regard to the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said variation would vitiate the subjective satisfaction itself and on this ground alone, the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.664/2013 dated 10.08.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Kumar @ Nirmalkumarin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.