Jaspal Singh ( 1 ) ON 30/04/1993 the petitioners were arrestedunder Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptiveactivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as TADA) and undersection 132 of the Customs Act. ( 2 ) ON 12/05/1993 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitanmagistrate. Delhi dismissed the bail application on the ground that therebeing "sufficient grounds" to believe that the provisions of TADA wereattracted, he was not competent to entertain the bail application. Subsequently, the petitioners moved the Designated Court which, by its order dated 20/05/1993, dismissed the bail application. The last paragraph of the ordermay be reproduced with profit. It runs as follows : "at the stage of bail, I am of the view that when prima facle thereappears atleast some offence of non-bailable nature and possibilityof other heinous offences having been committed (which only furtherinvestigation may or may not be able to show) a situation where theaccused may be able to adversely influence the investigation by getting released on bail should not be allowed to come into existence. I can only observe that so far as the assertion of C. B. I, that someoffence under TADA (P) Act will also be revealed is concerned, itis bet (sic) to withhold "remark about it on the part of thiscourt as the Court should best wait the outcome of furtherinvestigation. But from the material collected considering theother offences, the bail at this stage cannot be granted to either ofthe applicants. The petition is declined. But I may observe herethat the investigation must proceeded with expedition and withoutlatches," ( 3 ) ON 24/05/1993 the petitioners filed the writ of Habeas Corpusalleging that they were in "wholly unlawful and illegal custody" that noprovision of TADA was attracted and that in fact they had committed nopenal offence. Alongwith the writ petition they also moved a criminalmiscellaneous petition for their release from "wrongful custody and detention" pending the disposal of the writ petition. It is that application whichhas led to this order. ( 4 ) FIRST a brief resume of the facts. Admittedly petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors of a companynamely M/s. G. D. Ferrro Alloys (P) Ltd. It is claimed that petitioner No. 3was also its Director but ceased to be so with effect from 5/12/1992. It is that application whichhas led to this order. ( 4 ) FIRST a brief resume of the facts. Admittedly petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors of a companynamely M/s. G. D. Ferrro Alloys (P) Ltd. It is claimed that petitioner No. 3was also its Director but ceased to be so with effect from 5/12/1992. On 29/04/1993 a case was registered against the Company and the petitioners being their Directors or "looking after and managing the affairs ofthe Company" were arrested allegedly on account of their having importedparts of fire arms in the garb of stainless steel melting scrap as well as scrapfrom A and A Metals INC, Clinton Drive, Houston, Texas, USA. Out of thenine boxes so imported, two boxes were allegedly Found to contain thefollowing parts of fire arms : "slides 4093, pistol body 405, barrel 9mm 1850, pistols, magazine291, breech block 809, 22" pistols barrel 334, body of breech block316, 22 pistols, body 146, 9mm pistols trigger 571, pistol hammer733 and trigger guards 303. "in addition 297 Kgs of small parts of fire arms mechanism had also beenallegedly found. It is claimed that most of the fire arms appeared to be ofprohibited bore. ( 5 ) ON recovery of the above-noted parts of fire arms, a visual inspection was done by a Ballistics Expert, from the Central Forensic Sciencelaboratory. He reported: "on your request, I visited ICD Depot, Pragati Maidan, N. Delhitoday and visually examined some of the contents of a containerthere which is said to be scrap material. In my opinion, the contents of the container are parts of Fire Arrrs, some of them bearingmarkings of Arms Manufacturing Company RUGER (USA ). However, if a detailed report is desired the same will be given after laboratory examination of the material. " ( 6 ) AS per the Central Bureau of Investigation steps have already beentaken to investigate the matter in U. S. A. and other countries and that "possibility of their (petitioners) having links with the terrorists or anti-socialelements can t be ruled out. " ( 7 ) TIME now to deal with the arguments advanced. It was contended, on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment inparas Ram v. State of Haryana, 1993 Crl. L. J. 416, that even if it be assumedthat parts of fire-arms had been recovered. Section 5 of the TADA would notbe attracted since no "ammunition" had been recovered. " ( 7 ) TIME now to deal with the arguments advanced. It was contended, on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment inparas Ram v. State of Haryana, 1993 Crl. L. J. 416, that even if it be assumedthat parts of fire-arms had been recovered. Section 5 of the TADA would notbe attracted since no "ammunition" had been recovered. Undoubtedly, theapex Court has held that the words "arms and ammunition" appearing insection 5 of the TADA have to be read conjunctively and that mere recoveryof "arms" without there being any recovery of "ammunition" would notmake Section 5 applicable. However, what we can ill-afford to ignore is thatthe petitioners have been arrested not only under Section 5 of the TADAbut also under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 132 of the Customs Act and that thedesignated Court, after giving proper hearing refused to grant them bail. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed against that order though the Supremecourt could be approached under Section 19 of the TADA. ( 8 ) WHAT we are trying to emphasis is that the petitioners have nowbeen in judicial custody by virtue of a judicial order passed by a competentcourt and that bail has been refused to them by a speaking order which hasnot been appealed against and further that the petitioners are in judicialcustody not only on account of their having been arrested under Section 5 ofthe TADA but also on account of registration of First Information Reportunder Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code besidessection 25 of the Arms Act and Section 132 of the Customs Act with regardto which there was not even a murmur in protest. Under the circumstances,we are not inclined to hold, for the present at least, that the petitioners arein wrongful custody and detention". This being the position we do not feelinclined to release the petitioners pending the disposal of the writ petition. ( 9 ) BEFORE concluding, we may mention that our attention had alsobeen drawn to an order of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Dutt v. Thestate of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 574 of 1993. The order is of 5/05/1993. This being the position we do not feelinclined to release the petitioners pending the disposal of the writ petition. ( 9 ) BEFORE concluding, we may mention that our attention had alsobeen drawn to an order of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Dutt v. Thestate of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 574 of 1993. The order is of 5/05/1993. The High Court granted bail pending the disposal of the main writpetition on the ground that prima facie TADA was not applicable in the"facts and circumstances" of the case and also in view of the facts thataccused s custody was not required for the purpose of investigation and as hedid not "appear to be concerned with any conspiracy relating to the bombblasts. " ( 10 ) EVERY case is an island unto itself. In any case, the order passedby the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra providesno precedent it being clearly distinguishable on facts. The accused, in thatcase, was not charged with offences other than the one under Section 5 of thetada. The investigation too, it appears was complete. The accused didnot even "appear to be concerned with any conspiracy relating to the bombblasts. " In the case before us the petitioners have not only been arrestedunder Section 5 of the TADA but, as noticed above, also under Sec. 120-Bread with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Actand under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The investigation is yet at thestage of infancy. Since the investigation is at its initial stages and the situation is fluid, we are not inclined to ignore, not at this stage at least, thatthe Investigators are also suspecting, (for this is what we were told) possiblelinks of the petitioners with terrorists or antisocial elements. And, let us alsonot forget that huge quantities of parts of arms are alleged to have alreadybeen recovered. ( 11 ) THUS. LOOKED at from any angle, we find ourselves unable to makeourselves agree to the contention that the petitioners deserve to be released. They do not. The last word. Nothing said in this order shall be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the writ petition.