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.1673/2013 dated 20.11.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 20.11.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 M4 Red Hills Police Station Cr. No.1238/2012 341, 147, 148, 120(b) r/w 34, 302, 506(ii) I.P.C. 2 P3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Cr. No.16/2013 341, 302, 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 302, 506(ii) I.P.C. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1877/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. 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. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 5. A perusal of the booklet would show that in the English version of the remand order dated 07.11.2013, it has been stated that legal aid informed whereas in the vernacular version, the said sentence was omitted. The omission of vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, prevented the detenu from using the legal aid. In the English version of the remand order dated 07.11.2013 found at Page No.75 of the booklet, it is stated thus: "Accused produced at 8.30 p.m. Grounds of arrest & legal aid informed. No complaints of illtreatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 21.11.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.76, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from using the legal aid. No complaints of illtreatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 21.11.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.76, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from using the legal aid. Since there is variation in the translated version of the remand order in respect of the words in English version "legal aid informed" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu is prevented from using the legal aid. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No.1673/2013 dated 20.11.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Karthik @ Karthikeyan, S/o. Jaisankar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offence 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.