New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that dropping a pin on Google Maps “cannot be a condition of bail”, observing that the condition was “completely redundant”.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation after noting that the pin location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or the user’s device, and hence, does not help the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), which was the respondent in this case.
To understand the technical aspects of “dropping a PIN on Google Maps”, the court issued a notice to Google LLC in the United States. In its response, Google had told the court that “the pinned location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device”.
Taking note of Google’s submissions on Google Maps, the court now noted, “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.”
Then, the court said, “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.”
However, with regard to the dropping of a pin on Google Maps, it said the condition “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.”
In its judgment, the court also commented on the kind of bail conditions that can be imposed by courts, and asserted that the object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused granted bail.
It observed, “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.”
It added, “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.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by a Nigerian national, Frank Vitus, who was being prosecuted under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was arrested in May 2014.
Through an order passed in May 2022, the Delhi High Court granted him bail, subject to various terms and conditions.
Among other things, one of the conditions was that a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria, stating that Vitus would not leave the country and would appear before the court as and when required, was to be placed on record.
Another condition was that he would drop a PIN on Google Maps to ensure that his location was available to the investigating officer for the case.
He had now approached the Supreme Court, challenging these conditions.
Also read: Bail must be given if prosecuting agency can’t offer speedy trial, rules Supreme Court
‘Cannot be arbitrary’
While examining the court’s power to grant bail, the Supreme Court reiterated that “bail conditions cannot be fanciful, arbitrary or freakish”.
It then observed, “While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. Even an accused convicted by a competent court and undergoing a sentence in prison is not deprived of all his rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The court emphasised the fact that it is dealing with the case of an accused whose guilt is yet to be established. Therefore, while granting bail, courts “must show restraint”, it asserted.
It explained, “For example, the court may impose a condition of periodically reporting to the police station/court or not traveling abroad without prior permission…But the court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another.”
It observed, “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.”
Court deletes both conditions
As for the second bail condition, the court observed that grant of such a certificate by the embassy/high commission is beyond the control of the accused to whom bail is granted.
Therefore, it said that when the Embassy/High Commission does not grant such a certificate within a reasonable time, the accused, who is otherwise entitled to bail, cannot be denied bail on the ground that such a condition, which is impossible for the accused to comply with, has not been complied with.
“If the embassy/high commission records reasons for denying the certificate and the reasons are based on the adverse conduct of the accused based on material, the court can always consider the reasons recorded while considering an application for dispensing with the condition,” it observed, adding that “there can be many reasons for recording adversely against the accused, but these cannot be the basis to deny the bail to the accused after it has already been granted”.
In such a case, it said, instead of the condition of obtaining such a certificate, the condition of surrendering the passport and regularly reporting to the local police station or the trial court can always be imposed, depending upon the facts of each case.
The court then ruled, “Based on our findings on the two issues mentioned above, we direct that the two conditions in the order granting bail to the appellant, namely, obtaining a certificate from the embassy/high commission and dropping a pin of Google Maps, shall stand deleted.”
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)
Also read: SC/ST sub-division, AMU status — 6 key matters CJI-led Constitution benches have to decide this year