JUDGMENT:- Mookherji, J. The petitioner bas filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release, who has been detained under section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, (in short 'Crimes Act') as contained in annexure'1' to this application. 2. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate of Jehanabad (respondent no. 4) on 13. 2. 1990 and it was served on him in due course. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 19. 2. 1990 and it was confirmed by the Advisory Board by annexures 2 and 3 respectively. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. His first contention is that the grounds of detention having not been served, as required under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, it is bad in law on this score only. It is further stated that the detention order (annexure 1') is based on the alleged past criminal history of the petitioner and therefore, this is indicative of the fact that it was passed in a mechanical way. It is also stated that the order of detention is fit to be set aside, as some of the ground of the detention are references to cases against the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act. 4. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 the detaining authority, it is stated, inter alia, that the grounds of detention along with relevant police papers, was served on the petitioner in jail on 14.2.1990 in presence of the Jail Superintendent and after perusal of all the said papers the petitioner refused to sign in token of receipt of the same and therefore, this allegation is incorrect. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner has criminal history and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the r public order and as such, the detaining authorities considered it necessary to pass the detention order for maintenance of public order. Further. it is stated that the petitioner is accused in several criminal cases including Jehanabad P. S. case no. Further. it is stated that the petitioner is accused in several criminal cases including Jehanabad P. S. case no. 32 of 1990 for offences under sections 307/458 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, and he has created a problem for maintenance of the public order. 6. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no doubt in the counter affidavit an assertion has been made that the grounds of detention had been served on the petitioner on 14.2.90 in reply to the allegations made by the petitioner in the application that no such grounds bad been served, but this is incorrect assertion for the following reasons. 7. It is stated that nowhere in the order of detention nor in the subsequent orders of the State Government and the Advisory Board there is an indication that the grounds of detention had been served on the petitioner and he refused to accept it. 8. It is further stated that the petitioner was not aware of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, as no copy of it was also served on the petitioner's counsel and for the first time, they could know it when the hearing was taken up. In this connection, the receipt showing service of the counter affidavit has been referred to and it is submitted that the persons allegedly receiving it is in no way concerned with the counsel of the petitioner. This position has not been controverter by the learned counsel for the State. But it is submitted that copies of the grounds of detention annexed to the counter affidavit and the endorsement made thereon by the Jail Superintendent would indicate that it was served but not accepted by the petitioner. 9. It is true that the detaining authorities had asserted that the grounds of detention had been served on 14. 2. 90 and it was ref• used, but there is no satisfactory material to suggest that it was refused by the petitioner, as alleged. The petitioner had also no opportunity to rebut the contention made in the counter affidavit in this regard, as it was not duly served upon the petitioner. 2. 90 and it was ref• used, but there is no satisfactory material to suggest that it was refused by the petitioner, as alleged. The petitioner had also no opportunity to rebut the contention made in the counter affidavit in this regard, as it was not duly served upon the petitioner. Whatever may be the position, even if it is accepted that the grounds had been served on the petitioner and he refused to accept it, still then, this application has to be allowed in view of the legal position raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been submitted that if and anyone of the grounds of detention fails or not accepted by the court, then it is sufficient to set aside the detention Elaborating this pad of the argument the learned Counsel has submitted that three of the grounds of detentions are references to three cases against the petitioner under the provisions of Arms Act, also. These cases cannot be taken to be the ground of detention unless there is are order (s) of conviction undo or any of the sections 25 to 29 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, it is contended that the requirement of law, as provided in clause (v) to section 2 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, has Dot been fulfilled. In this connection a decision of this court in Cr. W. J. C. no. 148/86 decided on 19.11.86 (Pappu Yadav alias Rajesh Kumar Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar and others) reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. at page 58 has been referred to, wherein, it has been observed that detenu not having been convicted of offences under any of sections 25 to 29 of the Arms Act, cannot be said to be sufficient to call a person anti national The learned counsel for the State has not disputed the position of law in this regard and that being so, the order of detention cannot be sustained on his ground alone. 10. From what has been stated above, it is not necessary to deal with other points raised on behalf of the petitioner. Since the order of detention has been set aside on technical ground, it will be open to the authorities concerned to resort to the provisions of the National Security Act, against the petitioner on this very ground in accordance with law. Since the order of detention has been set aside on technical ground, it will be open to the authorities concerned to resort to the provisions of the National Security Act, against the petitioner on this very ground in accordance with law. This application for Habeas Corpus is accordingly allowed, the order of detention dated 13.2.1990 is set aside. Let a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued directing release of the petitioner from detention forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. HP. Application allowed.