Can Bail Condition That Accused Should Share Google Location With Police Be Imposed? Supreme Court To Decide

The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that it will consider whether the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court on an accused requiring him to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, could be permitted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against the Delhi High Court order that had granted bail to the internal auditor of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL) in a money laundering case involving bank loan fraud of several crores.

During the course of the hearing Justice Abhay S Oka remarked that imposing the condition requiring the accused to share his google location to the IO, would amount to surveillance and is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution:

“Read clause D, can this be done under Article 21? Applicant is to drop google pin location from his mobile phone to IO, so IO will keep a track, because of this he will be under constant surveillance.”

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that it was a case where the accused should not have been granted bail. The counsel for the accused informed the court that investigation is still going on and that the trial will not commence soon.

The Court issued notice and posted to matter for 3rd October.

“Apart from merits of the matter, we have to seriously consider whether condition D, incorporated while granting bail can be a condition of bail.” the Apex Court stated in its order. 

Clause (d) of the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court is as follows:

(d) The applicant shall drop a Google pin location from his mobile phone to the IO concerned which shall be kept operational throughout his bail

In the matter at hand an FIR was registered due to financial irregularity and siphoning of funds in relation to credit facilities obtained by SBFL from a consortium of banks led by the SBI and causing an estimated loss of Rs. 3269.42 crores.

The case of the respondent is that he was not named as an accused in the FIR and during the period under enquiry he was not the internal auditor of SBFL.

The Delhi High Court had held that CBI may proceed with the investigation but released the applicant on bail on the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand Only) each with surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (b) The applicant shall not leave the country and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the trial Court;

(c) The applicant shall furnish to the IO/SHO concerned his cellphone number on which the applicant may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

(d) The applicant shall drop a Google pin location from his mobile phone to the IO concerned which shall be kept operational throughout his bail;

(e) The applicant shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the proceedings in pending cases, if any;

(f) The applicant shall join investigation as and when directed by the IO and will appear in court as and when required

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement V Raman Bhuraria, Diary No.- 23447 - 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order