JUDGMENT M.L. Dudhat, J. - This criminal application is filed by the present petitioner who was Respondent No. 1 in Criminal Application No. 2595 of 1992. This application is filed for petitioner's immediate release from the jail custody more particularly under section 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Criminal Application No, 2595 of 1992 was preferred by the Enforcement Department against the order passed by the Additional Chief. Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, dated 9th September, 1992 rejecting the application of the petitioners for remand of Respondent No.1 till 23rd September, 1992 and also against the order of grant of bail releasing Respondent No.1. After hearing both the sides, I rejected the said application filed by the Enforcement Directorate and confirmed the order that of the trial Court While passing the final order, I have directed the present respondent jail authorities that if the present petitioner has complied with all the bail formalities, he maybe released forthwith, if not required in any other case. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has complied with all the bail formalities and, therefore, the respondent prison authorities shall have to release him forthwith, if not required in any other case. In spite of the aforesaid order, the jail authorities of Byculla Prison refused to release the petitioner and being aggrieved by the aforesaid act on the part of the jail authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present application for immediate release under section 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that as per the direction of this Court the petitioner has complied with all the formalities as ordered by the trial Court in respect of bail and further stated that I there is no valid order or warrant in the possession of the jail authorities on the basis of which they can refuse to release the present petitioner forth with as per my earlier order. 4. This application was moved in the morning for the immediate relief. Respondent was served and as per the request of Shri Lambay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, the matter was kept at 2.45 p.m. for further orders. 5. 4. This application was moved in the morning for the immediate relief. Respondent was served and as per the request of Shri Lambay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, the matter was kept at 2.45 p.m. for further orders. 5. The limited question before me to dispose of this application is as to whether there is any legal order in the possession of the jail authorities which prevented them from releasing the petitioner forthwith as per the order of this Court. Smt Lambay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent, contended that the jail authorities were and are not definite as to whether the petitioner can be released in view of the correspondence which they entered into. According to Shri Lambay when the matter of the petitioner was pending before the Special Court on 10th August, 1992 production warrant was received from the Special Judge, New Delhi, addressed to the Jailor, Byculla Central person, to produce the present petitioner at Delhi on or before 27th August, 1992. In pursuance of the aforesaid warrant, Justice Variava by his order, dated 14.8.1992 directed that the present petitioner be sent to Delhi and brought back on or before 24th August, 1992. It is pertinent to note that before the Special Court at Delhi, the Petitioner was remanded to the Judicial Custody at Byculla till 25th August, 1992. At this stage I may mention that it is the case of the present petitioner that on 25th August, 1992 the C.B.I. authorities never extended the remand and, therefore, the judicial custody as ordered by the Special Court at Delhi came to an end on 25th August, 1992. 6. Shri Lambay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, in order to show the bona fide on the pan of the prison authorities, showed me the correspondence entered into inter alia between the jail authorities and the C.B.I. By wireless message the Superintendent, Byculla Jail sent the message to the Superintendent, Tihar Central Prison, Delhi, wherein communication was sought by return signals as to whether the petitioner is further required by the Hon'ble Special Jude at Delhi in Case No. RC 2 (A) 192 CBI-ICU/VI, or the petitioner is granted bail. In the said wireless message it was also clearly stated that if the jail authorities do not receive any reply and if the accused is released on bail on 9th September; 1992 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, the accused shall be released by the jail authorities. To this wireless communication, the respondent jail authorities were informed that they should approach the Court of the Special Judge Kuldip Singh for grant of bail. 7. At this stage, I may also mention that as per the jail authorities they also received on 2nd September, 1992 a copy of the Judgment delivered by the Special Court in respect of bail application preferred by the present petitioner in that Court. The order indicates that the bail application preferred by the present petitioner in that Court was rejected. Shri Lambay drew my attention to some portion of the Judgment which had and which has in fact caused confusion in the mind of the jail authorities and that portion is “The accused Harshad S. Mehta is at present in judicial custody in this case and is lodged in District Jail, Byculla.’ Reading these lines, according to Shri Lambay, the jail authorities genuinely felt that the petitioner is also in the custody of the jail authorities on behalf of the Special Court at Delhi and it is because of these lines the jail authorities were hesitant to release the present petitioner in spite of the order of this Court. I have already pointed out that as per the petitioner, after 25th August, 1992 the remand was not extended. The petitioner has stated on oath in this application in Para 11 to that effect. Further in the whole correspondence entered into between the jail authorities and the C.B.I. there is nothing on record even to suggest the application was made for remand after 25th August, 1992. In view of this, it is clear that from 25th August, 1992 the petitioner was not in the custody of the Special Court at Delhi. 8. Further in the whole correspondence entered into between the jail authorities and the C.B.I. there is nothing on record even to suggest the application was made for remand after 25th August, 1992. In view of this, it is clear that from 25th August, 1992 the petitioner was not in the custody of the Special Court at Delhi. 8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid clear position, even presuming for a while that on 25th August, 1992 remand was granted for further custody, then still in any case that remand would have come to an end on 9th September, 1992 and there is nothing on record of the jail authorities to show that there is any order or communication to show that the petitioner is kept in the custody of Byculla Jail in a case which is pending before the Delhi Court. From this correspondence it is clear that as on today there is nothing on the record of the jail authorities to show that the petitioner is required to be kept in custody of Byculla Jail in a case which is pending before the Delhi Court. From this correspondence it is clear that as on today there is nothing on the record of jail authorities to show that the petitioner is required to be kept in custody of Byculla jail for and on behalf of the Special Court at Delhi or any other Court and, therefore, any continuation of the present petitioner in the jail will be patently illegal and will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Here I wish to point out that in view of this sensitive case and in view of the fact that confusion was created in the mind of the jail authorities after reading the order passed by the Special Court at Delhi as mentioned aforesaid, the jail authorities upto this time were reluctant to release the accused in spite of this Court's order. Further they had also sent telegraphic communication at 6 p.m. on. 21st September, 1992 to the D.I.G., Prison, Tihar Jail, for any information pertaining to the custody of the present petitioner and the said authority was to send communication on 22nd September, 1992, i.e. today. I may further mention that however, no communication is received in this behalf. 10. Further they had also sent telegraphic communication at 6 p.m. on. 21st September, 1992 to the D.I.G., Prison, Tihar Jail, for any information pertaining to the custody of the present petitioner and the said authority was to send communication on 22nd September, 1992, i.e. today. I may further mention that however, no communication is received in this behalf. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since uptill now there is no order whatsoever against the petitioner for his arrest or detention in any other case, I direct that the petitioner be released in the Court premises itself forthwith. Petition allowed.