The Supreme Court on Monday held that courts cannot impose bail conditions that require accused persons to share their location on Google Maps.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also held that in cases where the accused is a foreign national, courts cannot demand a “certificate of assurance” from relevant Embassies or High Commissions that the accused will not leave the country.
On May 31, 2022, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Nigerian national Frank Vitus in a drug smuggling case, subject to the condition that he and co-accused Ebera Nwanaforo “shall drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case”. They were also required to obtain a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria saying they would not leave the country.
Why did the SC reject Delhi HC’s unusual conditions?
After considering an affidavit submitted by Google which clarified that sharing a pinned location “does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device”, the SC held that the condition imposed was “completely redundant” as it does not help authorities track the accused persons.
The court also held that “any bail condition which enables the Police/ Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21”. The court then ordered the removal of this condition.
On the subject of the “certificate of assurance”, the court held that the grant of such a certificate is “beyond the control of the accused”, and ordered the removal of this condition as well. It stated that if the Embassy does not grant such a certificate within a reasonable time, the accused “cannot be denied bail” on the basis of a condition which is simply “impossible for the accused to comply with”.
What was the case about?
In May 2014, Vitus, Nwanaforo, and one Eric Jayden were arrested in Mahipalpur, Delhi by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officials who claimed to have received “secret information” regarding a consignment of drugs. According to the NCB, the three were in a taxi at the time, and Jayden was found carrying a bag containing 1.9 kg of Methamphetamine.
Vitus and Nwanaforo argued in court that there was no incriminating evidence on their person. They said that they had been incarcerated for eight years, and were thus entitled to bail as per the SC’s directions in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs Union of India & Ors (1994).
In this case, the SC had held that when there is a delay in disposing of cases under the NDPS Act, if the accused is charged with an offence punishable with 10 years’ imprisonment or more, they “shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount”. Other “general conditions” included, in the case of foreign nationals, obtaining a “certificate of assurance” from the relevant Embassy stating that they will not leave the country.
In line with this, the Delhi HC granted bail to Vitus and Nwanaforo, but added the requirement of submitting their Google Maps pin.
[ad_2]
Source link
