The appellant was granted bail concerning offences related to NDPS Act and two conditions. The first condition was to give Google Map PIN location and the second was to obtain a certificate of assurance from Embassy. The court in this case held both conditions as arbitrary and deleted these conditions.

Case Title

Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors., 2024 INSC 479.

Facts

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 8, 22, 23 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on 21^st May 2014 and was granted bail on 31^st May 2022 on various terms and conditions. The bail was granted relying on conditions laid down in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing undertrial prisoners v. UOI. Accordingly, two conditions were laid down, the first was, as the appellant was a foreigner, he should ensure a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission and second, he should drop a pin on Google map to ensure that their location is available to the I.O.

Issue

Whether this condition will offend rights of the accused under article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Court Observations

The court delved into Sec. 439 of CrPC which provides the power of a court of session or a HC to grant bail in non-bailable offences. Sec. 437(3) provides the conditions for grant of bail in non-bailable offences. The section leaves other conditions to be imposed by court in the interests of justice. Sec. 37 of NDPS provides provisions relating to bail. Further, Sec. 52 provides provision of CrPC will apply unless it is not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. For conditions for grant of bail, the court need to take reference of CrPC as NDPS Act do not provide conditions.

The Court referred to the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar where it was stated that the conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. ¶ 5 The court also relied on Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it was said that no freakish conditions should be justified while exercising discretion under Sec. 438. ¶6

Court relying on above stated principles stated that a broader meaning cannot be assigned to the words “interest of justice” in section 437(3) of CrPC. Court highlighted the importance of right to life by citing the case of State of AP v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy which provided that even prisoners have rights. “Even when lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution.” ¶7

Courts cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions. The court always have the power to cancel the bail instead of putting such arbitrary conditions.

The court stated that the intention of putting Google Map PIN location is to track the appellant on real time basis which will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also referred to affidavit filed by Shri R. Suresh Babu, authorized signatory of Google LLC, who stated that users have control over how they share their PIN location. The pinned location does not enable real time tracking of the user or their device. The court still stated that this was an arbitrary condition and deserved to be deleted accordingly.

For the other condition of furnishing the certificate of the embassy, the court relied on para 15 of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, the judgment provides that where the undertrial is accused of an offence under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. Further, the case provides conditions which were imposed in this case i.e., a certificate of assurance from Embassy.

The same case of SC legal aid committee under Para 16 provides the conditions laid down under para 15 are intended to operate as one-time directions for cases in which the accused persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. They are not intended to interfere with the Special Court’s power to grant bail under Sec. 37 of the Act.

So, the Court stated that it is not necessary in every case where bail is granted to an accused in an NDPS case who is a foreign national on the ground of long incarceration of more than 50% of the minimum sentence, the condition of obtaining a certificate. It will depend on the facts of each case.

Judgment

The Court deleted the two conditions of dropping Google Maps PIN and Obtaining a certificate from the embassy from the order granting bail to the appellant relying on the above mentioned findings.

To read similar topics click here.