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

The Supreme Court on Monday held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to access his location violates a person's right to privacy.

"There can't be bail condition defeating the very objective of bail. There can't be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused and virtually peep into the private life of the accused," Justice Oka verbally pronounced the verdict.

The court also relaxed a bail condition that required the foreign accused to obtain an assurance from his Embassy that they would not leave India. The bench said that there cannot be bail conditions that defeat the purpose of granting bail.

Object of bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused.

The judgment authored by Justice Oka stated :

"The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21. If a constant vigil is kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by the use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right to privacy. The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions will amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail."

As regards the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the bail condition requiring the accused to drop the PIN location on the Google Maps will not result in real-time tracking. The Court reached this conclusion after taking inputs from Google LLC.

"In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, Google LLC stated that the user has full control over sharing PINs with other users. Moreover, it does not impinge on the user's privacy, as the user retains full control. Most importantly, it is stated that the PIN location does not enable real­time tracking of the user or the user's device. Therefore, the condition of the accused dropping a pin on Google Maps, as it stands, is completely redundant as the same does not help the first respondent," the Court observed.

"Imposing any bail condition which enables the Police/Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused released on bail by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21. In this case, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps has been incorporated without even considering the technical effect of dropping a PIN and the relevance of the said condition as a condition of bail," it added. Therefore, the Court directed the deletion of the said condition.

The court was dealing with a special leave to appeal petition against the Delhi High Court's conditions for granting interim bail to Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drugs case.

In 2022, the High Court had ordered the accused and a co-accused to place a pin on Google Maps so their whereabouts would be visible to the Investigating Officer. Additionally, the High Court had directed the accused to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission confirming they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court.

While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court had asked Google India to explain the functioning of Google PIN in the context of bail conditions requiring the accused to share their live mobile location.

After excusing Google India from this explanation, the court directed Google LLC to clarify the workings of Google PIN. On April 29, after reviewing the affidavit from Google LLC, Justice Oka found it “superfluous”. He also remarked that this bail condition is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) argued that such a condition helps share the live location of the accused. However, Justice Oka disagreed, emphasizing that it cannot be a bail condition, even if it has been used in two instances by the court.

The court considered two main issues: whether an accused must share the Google PIN location with the investigating officer as a bail condition, and whether bail to a foreign accused can be conditioned on obtaining an assurance from their Embassy that they will not leave India.

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare assisted the Court as an amicus curiae.

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

Case Title – Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Click here to read the judgment