5.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order. It is pertinent to note here that the detenu has not moved any bail application in respect of the ground case in Crime No.866 of 2013. While so, the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime number (ground case) without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. Apart from that, in the booklet furnished to the detenu, in the English version of the remand extension order, it has been stated that the accused have been produced on 22.07.2013 and remand was extended till 02.08.2013 and again on 02.08.2013, accused have been produced and remand was extended till 16.08.2013. But in the vernacular version, it has been stated as though the accused have been produced on 22.07.2013 and the remand was extended till 02.08.2013 and thereafter upto 16.08.2013. In the English version of the remand order found at Page No.197, it has been stated thus:
