Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.742/2013 dated 20.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Crime No.2072/ 2012 147, 148, 307 IPC 2. J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Crime No.390/2013 392 IPC 3. J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station Crime No.1435/2013 341, 294(b), 427, 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1451 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is variation in the number of the bail application relied on by the detaining authority. He would submit that in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that in a similar case in Crime No.272 of 2011, bail has been granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15965 of 2011 and hence there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the second adverse case. In the booklet furnished to the detenu, at Page No.237 – bail application, the case number has been mentioned as Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2011. Therefore, this would create confusion in the mind of the detenu, which prevented him from making effective representation for redressal of his grievance. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 grounds of detention are extracted hereunder: “I am aware that Thiru.Pradeepraj is in remand in J-11 Kannagi Nagar P.S. Cr.Nos.390/2013 and 1451/2013 and he has moved a bail application for J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station Crime No.1451/2013 before the District Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.3205/2013 and the same was granted on 19.08.2013. He has filed a bail application for J-11 Kannagi Nagar P.S.Cr.No.390/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.7927/2013 and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Pradeepraj are taking action to take him out on bail in J-11 Kannagi Nagar P.S. Cr.No.390/2013 by filing another bail application before the appropriate Court. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at M-8 Sathankadu Police Station Cr.No.272/2011 under Section 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in Crl.O.P.No.15965/2011....” 6. On a perusal of the booklet as well as the detention order, it is crystal clear that there is variation between the case number in the bail application and in para 4 of the grounds of detention. In the bail application found at page No.237 of the booklet, the number of the case has been stated as Crl.O.P.No.15963 of 2011 whereas in para 4 of the grounds of detention, it has been stated as Crl.O.P.No.15965 of 2011. When there is a variation in translation, that too in the document relied on by the detaining authority, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The above said variation would also vitiate the subjective satisfaction. Therefore, on these grounds, 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 BDFGISSV No.742/2013 dated 20.08.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Pradeepraj, S/o. Bakiyaraj, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.