New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the police cannot peep into an accused person's private life for bail and set aside the condition requiring the accused to share a Google pin location with the investigating authority.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said there can't be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused and virtually peep into the accused's privacy.
The bench examined whether a bail condition requiring an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to access his location violates a person's right to privacy.
Due to privacy concerns, the bench criticized the mandatory Google pin sharing for bail.
The court was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Delhi High Court order where it laid conditions for granting interim bail to Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drugs case.
The Supreme Court relaxed the bail condition that required the foreign accused to obtain an assurance from his Embassy that they would not leave India.
The bench said that there cannot be bail conditions that defeat the purpose of granting bail.
In 2022, the Delhi High Court ordered the accused and a co-accused to place a pin on Google Maps so their whereabouts would be visible to the Investigating Officer.
The High Court had also directed the accused to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission confirming they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court.
While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court had asked Google India to explain the functioning of Google PIN in the context of bail conditions requiring the accused to share their live mobile location.
The Court had exempted Google India from being a party in the case but had directed Google LLC to clarify the workings of Google PIN.
On April 29, after reviewing the affidavit from Google LLC, Justice Oka found it "superfluous." He also remarked that this bail condition is covered by Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to Article 21, “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, appearing for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), argued that such a condition helps share the live location of the accused.
However, Justice Oka disagreed, emphasizing that it cannot be a bail condition, even if it has been used in two instances by the court.
The court considered two main issues: whether an accused must share the Google PIN location with the investigating officer as a bail condition, and whether bail for a foreign accused can be conditioned on obtaining an assurance from their Embassy that they will not leave India.
