Mr. 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.

2. 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.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

4. 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.

5. 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(3) Law Herald (SC) 2059] : 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 hast