The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an explanation from an investigating officer and another police official after observing an apparent attempt to convert a Magistrate-triable case into a Sessions triable one. Describing such an apparent attempt as “not permissible under the law”, the Bench also directed both officers to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing.Justice Surya Partap Singh passed the directions while granting regular bail to an accused in a case arising out of gold and silver jewellery theft from a shop in Bathinda. The FIR in the matter was registered on January 15 at Canal Colony police station in Bathinda district on the jeweller’s complaint.He alleged that the locks of his shop were broken, the shutter lifted and jewellery weighing stolen during the intervening night of January 14-15. During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the persons responsible for the theft sold a part of the stolen jewellery — 7 kg of silver — to the petitioner. Considering the bail plea, Justice Surya Partap Singh observed: “In the present case the challan has been filed by the police for the offence under Section 395 (punishment for dacoity). But as per contents of FIR, prima facie the essential ingredients meant for an offence under Section 395 are not made out”.The Bench added that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he was responsible for the purchase of stolen property, which amounted to an offence under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Justice Surya Partap Singh further observed the petitioner had already been in custody for over four months, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence was imprisonment up to three years. Besides this, the property had already been recovered. The trial was not likely to be concluded in near future and his detention in judicial lock-up was not likely to serve any purpose.Before parting ways with the present order, Justice Surya Partap Singh asserted: “It is relevant to note that apparently the ingredients meant for commission of offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (dacoity) are not made out. But the challan has been filed for the offence”.The Bench added there appeared to be an attempt to convert a Magistrate trial case into a Sessions trial case. “Thus, the investigating officer of that case, as well as the SHO concerned who signed the challan, are directed to furnish explanation on what basis challan for the commission of offence under Section 310(2) BNS has been filed in the present case. The investigating officer and the SHO concerned are also directed to be present in the court on the next date of hearing,” the Bench asserted.Justice Surya Partap Singh added challan has already been filed in the Court. “Let a report be submitted by the Trial Court detailing therein under which provision the charges have been framed against the petitioner,” Justice Surya Partap Singh added.