Judgment M. Jaichandren & K.B.K. Vasuki, JJ. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Udayakumar @ Arni Kumar, aged 30 years, S/o Sadaiyan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in D.O.No.34/2014-C2 dated 04.09.2014, passed by the 1st Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a “Goonda” in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.V.Rajamohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument on the ground that there is variation in translation of the bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruvannamalai in C.M.P.No.8127/2014 in respect of Crime No.115/2014, and that would vitiate the order of detention and the same has deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 641 (Kalyani vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, 3rd Floor, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & another), in this regard. 3. Per contra, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though there is some variation in the translation of the said bail order, but it will not affect the order of detention as the same has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. 4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record. 5. 4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record. 5. It is seen from page Nos.63 and 64 of the booklet that in the bail order copy of the co-accused dated 12.08.2014 made in C.M.P.No.8127/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, it has been stated that “learned APP objected to release the petitioner/accused stating that in this case, co-accused to be arrested and investigation is pending”, but in Tamil version, the same has not been mentioned so, which in our considered view is the material defect in the translation and the same has deprived the detenu in making effective representation and the same render the order based on such defective translation to be vitiated by applying the view expressed in the judgment reported in Kalyani vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, 3rd Floor, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & Another, 2014 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 641. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.