This initiative enhances understanding and compliance, emphasizing the crucial role of linguistic accessibility in legal proceedings.
In a significant move, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has introduced a pioneering practice by incorporating Hindi translations of bail conditions directly into the original order. This initiative, aimed at improving the understanding and compliance of the accused and surety, represents a notable departure in judicial procedure, underscoring the importance of linguistic accessibility in legal processes.
Also Read: https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court-krishna-janmabhoomi/
The case in question involved Damodar Yadav, who was granted bail by the High Court under specific conditions. Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, presiding over the case, emphasized the need for clarity and comprehension in legal proceedings.
The court order stated,
“…it is directed that applicant Damodar Yadav shall be released on bail… upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for compliance with the following conditions: (For the sake of convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of bail are also reproduced in Hindi as under):”
This decision came while hearing Damodar Yadav’s first bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Yadav had been in judicial custody since December 27, 2023, for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Also Read: https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court-caste-religion/
The court further instructed,
“The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned, if any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.”
This directive underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that legal directives are not just issued but also understood by those they directly affect.
The background of the case involves an altercation between the accused and the deceased, Radheshyam, followed by a tragic incident where Radheshyam allegedly consumed poison and blamed Damodar Das for his death in a Facebook video. The defense argued that a minor altercation could not constitute an offence of abetment or instigation in the absence of mens rea (criminal intent). They also highlighted that both the accused and the deceased belonged to the same socio-economic status, arguing that there was no likelihood of evidence tampering or witness influence.
Also Read: https://lawchakra.in/simi-ban-india-ban-on-simi-for-five-more-years/
On the other hand, the state counsel emphasized the gravity of the case and the accused’s criminal history as grounds for denying bail. However, the court, while granting bail, clarified that the order would remain effective until the end of the trial, provided there was no breach of the bail conditions.
