Crl. Misc. No.M-11518 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-11518 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 26, 2010 Iqbal Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. P.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) While considering the application of bail the learned trial Court has made a reference to this Court being not satisfied with the different steps of the investigation taken by investigating agency at different stages. The trial Court instead of dismissing or allowing the application for bail of the petitioners has observed as follows:- Crl. Misc. No.M-11518 of 2010 [2] “8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to send copy of this order to Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana with a request to consider the matter for getting further investigation of this case (FIR No. 97 dated 19.6.09 of police station Patti u/s 302/201 r/w section 34 of IPC) conducted by specific Senior Police Officer (by name or designation) or by some other independent agency invoking the inherent powers vested in the Hon’ble High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” A perusal of the above reference indicates that the trial Court wants the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and get the matter investigated by specific senior police officer or by some independent agency. The powers of Court to give a reference to the High Court is governed by provisions of Section 395 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- “Section 395 Reference to High Court- (1) Where any court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or Crl. Misc. No.M-11518 of 2010 [3] provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the Court to which that court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor and refer the same for the decision of the High Court. Explanation. In this section, “Regulation” means any Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), or in the General Clauses Act of a State. (2) A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if it or he thinks fit in any case pending before it or him to which the provisions of sub-section (1) do not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of such case. (3) Any court making a reference to the High Court under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) may, pending the decision of the High Court thereon, either commit the accused to jail or release him on bail to appear when called upon.” The reference sent by the Learned Sessions Judge does not fall in the ambit of the scope of Section 395 (1), 395 (2) or 395 (3) Cr.P.C., as neither the matter pending before the Court involves a question as the validity of the Act, Ordinance or regulation or any such provisions nor any Crl. Misc. No.M-11518 of 2010 [4] question of law arising out of the hearing of the case pending before the Sessions Court is required to be decided. In view of the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the application for bail. In case the circumstances warrant that on the basis of any defective investigation or on the basis of any duel version petitioners are prima facie entitled to the concession of bail, the Court will be at liberty to grant the said relief on the basis of his satisfaction of merits. The matter is referred back to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application for bail of the petitioners on merits within a period of 7 days after the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Order be communicated to the Sessions Court. May 26, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE