Judgment G. Chockalingam, 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 order of the 2nd respondent passed in D.O.No.86 of 2013-C2, dated 07.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Valathi Police Station, Crime No.31/2011 174(1) Cr.P.C. @ 302, 379 IPC @ 364, 392 r/w. 379 IPC and 302, 201 IPC r/w. 34 IPC 2. Periyathachur Police Station, Crime No.371/2011 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364(A), 365, 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 364(A), 365 and 506(ii) IPC 3. (Andra Pradesh) Srikalahasthi Police Station, Crime No.121/2012 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 447, 120(B) & 302 IPC r/w. 149 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 31.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station in Crime No.557 of 2013 for the offence under Section 392 r/w. 397 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 mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil version of the bail order granted to the detenu in respect of first adverse case in Crime No.31 of 2011 has not been furnished to the detenu 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. From a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that the detaining authority has failed to furnish the copy of the bail order granted to the detenu in respect of first adverse case in Crime No.31 of 2011 in vernacular language. Instead of the same, the detaining authority has wrongly furnished the bail order granted in respect of second adverse case in Crime No.371 of 2011 [Crl.M.P.No.11318 of 2011]. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. 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. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. 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. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Sugisivam @ Suvendar, S/o. (Late) Kaliyamoorthy, made in D.O.No.86 of 2013-C2, dated 07.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences 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.