In a recent bail order related to an abetment of a suicide case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took the initiative to articulate the bail conditions in Hindi. This decision was made with the aim of ensuring that the individual granted bail comprehended the stipulated terms effectively.
In the process of granting conditional bail to Damodar Yadav in a case involving the abetment of suicide, Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, a single-judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, took the step of restating the bail conditions in Hindi. This measure was undertaken to facilitate better understanding for both the accused and the surety involved in the case.
"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," the court directed.
Usually, the High Courts issue orders in English, although some have begun to provide translated versions of judgments or orders in the native language of the respective state. In the current scenario, the accused, confined since December 27, 2023, in connection with an abetment to suicide case, submitted a bail application.
As per the prosecution's account, Chandra Mohan Yadav reported to the police that Damodar Yadav and others were involved in a dispute with his cousin, Radheshyam Yadav.
On November 2, 2023, Radheshyam posted a video on Facebook where he was observed consuming poison. In the video, he accused Damodar Yadav of being responsible for his impending demise.
Following Radheshyam's admission to the hospital on November 2, 2023, he unfortunately succumbed on the same day. Subsequently, a case was filed against Damodar Yadav and others under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was taken into custody on December 27, 2023, and the final report was submitted on December 28, 2023.
The applicant's counsel contended that there was no intention on his part to cause Radheshyam's death. Even when considering the allegations at face value, the argument was made that there is no basis for charging him with abetment or instigation. It was emphasized that mere harassment or abuse does not constitute the instigation or abetment of suicide.
Additionally, it was highlighted that the trial court had already granted bail to the other co-accused. Given that the applicant is a farmer with familial obligations, it was asserted that he poses no flight risk. Despite these arguments, the State counsel opposed the bail plea.
Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and a thorough examination of the case's circumstances, the Court decided to grant bail to the accused.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Siddharth Sijoria.
The State was represented by advocate VPS Tomar.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy