Summary
Two bail conditions were deleted: sharing a Google Maps pin and procuring an embassy assurance. A static pin did not enable tracking and was redundant; continuous technological monitoring would violate privacy. An embassy certificate was not invariably required under the earlier one-time NDPS directions and could not make bail impossible to secure. The matter was retained for final orders after compliance review.
Issues
- What limits govern bail conditions under the CrPC and Article 21.
- Whether requiring a Google Maps pin was a valid condition.
- Whether a foreign accused must invariably obtain an embassy assurance certificate and what follows if it is unavailable.
Provisions considered
- Sections 437(3) and 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Additional bail conditions must serve administration of justice and trial-related purposes, remain proportionate and avoid arbitrary, irrelevant or impossible requirements. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 7.1, 9)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPrivacy survives release on bail. A condition permitting constant monitoring of every movement would impermissibly restrict liberty and privacy; conditions may curtail rights only to the minimum extent necessary. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 10, 10.1, 10.2)
- Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Once the case warrants bail under the statutory restrictions, conditions remain governed by the permissible CrPC framework. The earlier Legal Aid Committee directions were a one-time measure and did not mandate every listed condition in every later case. (¶¶ 4.1, 11, 11.1, 13, 14)
- Section 441(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Bail conditions form part of the bond and bind the accused; breach or commission of an offence may justify cancellation, without requiring intrusive constant surveillance. (¶ 8)
Held
- Bail conditions must advance the investigation or trial by securing attendance, preserving evidence, preventing interference or further offending. They cannot be arbitrary or so onerous that bail itself is frustrated. Cooperation with investigation does not require confession, and an impossible condition cannot lawfully deny bail otherwise warranted. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 7.1, 8, 9)
- An accused retains Article 21 rights and the presumption of innocence. Periodic reporting or justified travel or area restrictions may be permissible, but compelling constant information about movements, through technology or otherwise, would violate privacy and effectively continue confinement after bail. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 10.2)
- Google’s affidavit explained that a shared pin marks a user-selected static location and does not enable real-time tracking of the user or device. This condition was therefore redundant and had been imposed without examining its technical effect or relevance. It was deleted; a condition that actually enabled constant tracking would independently violate Article 21. (¶¶ 10, 10.1, 10.2, 15)
- The Legal Aid Committee judgment’s specified conditions were one-time directions for the then-pending delayed cases. They did not require an embassy assurance whenever a foreign accused later obtained NDPS bail on long-incarceration grounds. Applicability must depend on individual facts, and no larger-Bench reference was necessary. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 14)
- An accused cannot compel an embassy to issue an assurance. If it declines or fails to act within a reasonable time, indicated as about seven days, the court can dispense with the condition rather than frustrate bail. Material-based adverse reasons may be considered, and suitable alternatives include passport surrender and regular reporting. (¶ 12)
- This appellant had also received bail on merits in light of the basis of implication under Section 67 and the Tofan Singh ruling. Automatically importing all earlier onerous conditions was unjustified. Both disputed conditions were deleted, with the case listed for 15 July 2024 to consider compliance and pass final orders. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Result
Embassy-assurance and Google Maps pin conditions deleted. Case directed to be listed on 15 July 2024 for final orders after considering compliance; no larger-Bench reference required.