No the police cannot grant as in case of motor accident a case of rash and negligent driving shall be registered along with death by negligence under 304A ipc against the person and the bail has to be taken from the Court.

You would be arrested and produced before courts and you can apply for bail

Dear Client,

If the person is not booked under drunk and drive, Station bail is mandatory. Police cannot refuse.

Make sure person booked u/s 304a and not 304 of IPC.

Hello,

SC yesterday has held station bail to be invalid. Police can not grant bail from station now.

Regards

This is a bailable offence and bail can be granted by the station house officer another case it can be done from the Court

Causing death by rash or negligent act

Punishment - 2 Years or Fine or Both

This is a Bailable, Cognizable offence and triable by Magistrate First Class

This offence is NOT compoundable.

In such case you should apply for bail before magistrate

In case of a bailable offense bail is a matter of right and if the accused is prepared at any time while in the custody of officer to give bail, such person shall be released on bail.

If no other non-bailable offences are clubbed against the person than 304A is bailable and a station bail.can be taken. The surety amount can be deposited with the station and bail.can be taken

Dear Sir,

It is a bailable offence and in all bailable offences the police may exercise their power to release on bail. But when the public are making big hangamma/trouble like public strikes etc then for their safety the police produce the accused before the Court and any how you will get the bail. Nothing will happen. Case law is in respect of section 304A ipc converted to 304 II IPC.

Munni vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 February, 2013

Crl. Misc. No. M-18508 of 2011 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18508 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision : February 20, 2013

Munni .... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and another .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A. G., Haryana.

* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Accused Munni has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) assailing order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Hansi.

The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.299 dated 28.05.2011, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC), registered at Police Station Hansi City, District Hisar and was produced before learned SDJM, Hansi. Since offence under Section 304-A IPC is bailable, counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of the petitioner on bail. However, learned Magistrate, vide order Annexure P-2, found that in fact, from prosecution version, offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC was made out. Consequently, bail was declined to the petitioner by learned SDJM vide order Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that SDJM, Hansi has been impleaded as respondent no.2 to the instant petition. This practice of impleading the Judicial Officers as party to the case, while challenging judicial orders passed by them, has been strongly deprecated by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court, but in spite thereof, in the instant case, the Judicial Officer has been implicated as respondent no.2, although by designation and not by name. Accordingly, respondent no.2 is deleted from the array of respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal vs. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani reported as 2009 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 161, contended that since offence under Section 304-A IPC was bailable, the learned Magistrate was bound to release the petitioner on bail, and therefore, impugned order is patently illegal. Reliance has also been placed on unreported judgment dated 30.04.2009 of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-11493 of 2009 titled Trinayan Saikia vs. State of Haryana.

I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Merely because the police alleged that offence under Section 304-A IPC was made out, the Magistrate was not bound to accept the same blindly. The Magistrate was required to apply his judicial mind. On doing so, learned Magistrate found that in fact, offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC was prima facie made out. Consequently, bail was rightly declined to the petitioner. If police version is accepted blindly by the Magistrate, even at the stage of remand/bail, it may result in great miscarriage of justice. A simple example would be sufficient to demonstrate the same. Taking a converse situation, the police in a case falling under Section 304-A IPC, may present the accused with application for remand alleging the case to be under Section 304 or Section 302 IPC. If the Magistrate accepts such version blindly, it would result in great miscarriage of justice to such accused. Consequently, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind even at the said stage and to see what offence is prima facie made out from the police version. On the other hand, if contention of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then everything would be in the domain of police, and the Courts would become redundant. Such situation cannot be accepted. In Cr.P.C., there is separation of powers and functions of the police and the Courts. Police presents its case before the Courts. The Courts, after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, are supposed to pass appropriate orders.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of learned Magistrate cannot be said to be suffering from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I may hasten to add that I should not be misunderstood to mean that offence under Section 304 Part II IPC was prima facie made out in this case. I am not expressing any opinion in this regard, particularly because counsel for the parties have informed that already charge under Section 304-A IPC has since been framed against the petitioner.

It may also be noticed that the petitioner had already been released on bail on 09.06.2011, pursuant to interim order of this Court.

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal (supra) has no applicability to the instant case. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in a bailable case, the accused has to be released on bail if he is ready and willing to furnish requisite bail bonds. However, in the instant case, the question before the Magistrate was whether bailable offence under Section 304-A IPC was made out or non-bailable offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC was made out. The Magistrate was of the view that the latter (non-bailable) offence was made out and consequently, the petitioner was held not entitled to bail as a matter of right.

Judgment of this Court in the case of Trinayan Saikia (supra) rather goes against the petitioner. In that case, FIR was registered under Section 304-A IPC on account of death of a person, who got stuck up in a lift. However, later on, offence under Section 304 IPC was added. Consequently, bail of the petitioner was declined not only by the Magistrate, but also by Sessions Court. However, this Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, granted bail to the said accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, if in the instant case, the Magistrate holding the case to be falling under Section 304 Part-II IPC, did not grant bail to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal merely on the ground that the petitioner should have been released on bail because offence under Section 304-A IPC, advanced by the police, was bailable one.

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed as being meritless, but it shall not effect order of release of the petitioner on bail.

February 20, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL )

monika JUDGE

The recent rule is for all the cases.

You may get the bail from court.

Regards

No police can not give station bail in cases of 304a.

You may have to approach the Court for the appropriate reliefs.

In one case decided by P&H, it has been held that the magistrate has to grant the bail after applying his judicial whether the offence is of 304A or something else. Therefore, police is not competent to grant the bail.

1. No station bail can be availed for such case when there is a death caused in the said accident.

2. Even for causing grievous hurt for rash driving, station bail is not granted.

1. No station bail can be availed under section 304 A of IPC.

2. The accused shall have to avail the bail from the Magistrate of First Class.

304a is a bailable offence. Police has the authority to release the accused in 304a on bail on getting the defined surety amount along with a duly filled bail bond. Otherwise arrested person has to apply for bail before a magistrate or court.

Station bail is available till this date.

The accused can be let off on station bail for the offence under section 304A

would like to know since 304 A is a bailable offence , if station bail can be given.Is it a recent rule only for 304A that only court bail can be given?

The amendment is yet to be implemented, for now, he can be let out on station bail because it is a bailable offence

Hi, In all the cases you would say that accident was happened due to mistake and fault of the two wheelers.