Supreme Court Asks Accused To Share Live Mobile Location With Police While Another Bench Is Examining Validity Of Such Bail Condition

The Supreme Court on Thursday (2nd November) enlarged a man facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail on the condition that he share his location through his mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock.

Notably, this order was passed, while a coordinate bench of the Apex Court is yet to adjudicate upon whether prescribing a bail condition of sharing one’s live location with the investigating officer violates the right to privacy.

A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi passed the recent bail order in a case where 35 kgs of poppy straw was allegedly recovered from a man. The Court granted him bail considering that he had already spent over 7 months in custody and that the chargesheet had already been filed. Since the recovered contraband item weighs less than the stipulated commercial quantity (50khs for poppy straw), the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply, the Court noted.

“We, however, direct that while enlarged on bail, without leave of the Special Court the appellant shall not go beyond the Alwar District, Rajasthan and he shall make available his location 2 through mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock,” the Apex Court said.

Notably, the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal had orally remarked last month that imposing a bail condition requiring an accused to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer throughout the period of his bail, is prima facie violative of his right to privacy.

The said bench is considering the question on sharing of live location as a bail condition, in the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against a 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.

"You must explain to us the practical effect of such a condition. Once a person is set at liberty, certain conditions are imposed. But here you are tracking their movement after grant of bail, isn't this violative of right to privacy"? Justice Oka had asked the counsel for the ED while hearing the matter. 

AoR Namit Saxena appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: PURANMAL JAT V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). ---OF 2023 (Arising from SLP(Crl.)No(s).10670/2023)

Click here to read/download order