The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that bail conditions should not permit police to continuously monitor the movements of an accused individual, as this would intrude on their privacy.
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, examined the legality of a bail condition requiring an accused to share their Google Maps location with the investigating officer, which would allow constant tracking.
The Court, referencing a report by Live Law, annulled this condition, emphasizing that such surveillance violates an individual’s right to privacy.
Justice Oka stated that a bail condition should not undermine the purpose of bail by allowing the police to intrude into the private life of the accused.
The Court also relaxed another bail condition that required foreign nationals to obtain assurance from their embassy that they would not leave India. The bench highlighted that bail conditions should not defeat the intent of granting bail.
The case involved a special leave to appeal against the Delhi High Court’s interim bail conditions for Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drug-related case.
In 2022, the High Court had mandated that Vitus and a co-accused share their live location via Google Maps and secure a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission affirming they would remain in India and appear before the trial court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court requested Google India to clarify the operation of Google PIN in the context of bail conditions. Google LLC was later asked to provide clarification after the court deemed Google India’s input insufficient.
After reviewing an affidavit from Google LLC on April 29, Justice Oka dismissed the bail condition as “superfluous,” asserting it violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to personal liberty.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, representing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), argued that such conditions facilitate the sharing of an accused’s live location.
However, Justice Oka rejected this notion, noting that such a bail condition cannot be justified, despite its previous application in two instances.
The Court ultimately concluded that an accused should not be required to share their Google PIN location with an investigating officer as a bail condition and that a foreign accused’s bail should not be contingent on an embassy’s assurance of non-departure from India.