Bail Condition Enabling Police To Constantly Track Movement Of Accused Can't Be Imposed: Supreme Court

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a bail condition allowing police to constantly monitor an accused's movements, thereby intruding into their privacy, is impermissible. This decision was delivered by a bench consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. They were considering the legality of a bail condition that required an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps, enabling the investigating officer to track their location. The Court found this condition violated the individual's right to privacy and thus overturned it.

Justice Oka stated that bail conditions should not undermine the primary objective of bail, nor should they enable the police to intrude into the accused's private life. Additionally, the Court eased another bail condition that required foreign nationals to secure an assurance from their Embassy, guaranteeing they would not leave India. The bench asserted that bail conditions should not counteract the fundamental purpose of granting bail.

The case at hand involved a special leave to appeal against the Delhi High Court's interim bail conditions for Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national charged in a drug-related case. In 2022, the High Court had mandated that Vitus and a co-accused use Google Maps to share their live location with the Investigating Officer and obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission stating they would remain in India and appear in court.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court sought clarification from Google India about the use of Google PIN in relation to bail conditions. However, Google India was excused, and the court directed Google LLC to provide an explanation. After reviewing Google LLC's affidavit on April 29, Justice Oka deemed the information redundant and declared that such bail conditions infringed on Article 21 of the Constitution.

Despite arguments from Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, representing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), who contended that the live location sharing condition was beneficial, Justice Oka firmly opposed its use as a bail condition, regardless of its previous application in other cases.

Case no. – SLP (Crl.) No. 6339-6340/2023

Case Title – Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court's ruling focused on two pivotal questions: whether an accused must share their Google PIN location as a bail condition and whether bail for a foreign national can be dependent on obtaining an assurance from their Embassy that they will not leave India.

Updates will follow once the full judgment is published.