9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 458 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps - Condition of furnishing certificate of the embassy. Condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps - HELD THAT - 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. In this case, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps 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. This cannot be a condition of bail. The condition deserves to be deleted and ordered accordingly. In some cases, this Court may have imposed a similar condition. But in those cases, this Court was not called upon to decide the issue of the effect and legality of such a condition. Condition of furnishing certificate of the embassy - HELD THAT - Grant of such a certificate by the Embassy/High Commission is beyond the control of the accused to whom bail is granted. Therefore, when the Embassy/High Commission does not grant such a certificate within a reasonable time, as explained above, the accused, who is otherwise held 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. Hence, the Court will have to delete the condition. 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. Coming to the facts of the case, bail has been granted to the appellant firstly on the ground that the appellant has been implicated based on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and that such statements are entirely inadmissible in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 2020 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT . So, bail has been granted on merits as well. Secondly, the bail has also been granted relying upon what is held in paragraph 15 of the decision in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee1. The case shall be listed on 15 July 2024 for passing final orders after considering the compliances made by the appellant so far.
Issues Involved:
1. Condition of obtaining a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission. 2. Condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps. 3. Applicability of Section 439 of the CrPC in granting bail. 4. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail. 5. Interpretation of "interest of justice" in Section 437(3) of the CrPC. 6. Constitutional rights under Article 21 in relation to bail conditions. Detailed Analysis: Condition of Obtaining a Certificate of Assurance from the Embassy/High Commission: The appellant was aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, requiring a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that the appellant shall not leave the country and shall appear before the learned Special Judge as and when required. This condition was based on Clause (iv) of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731, which mandates such a certificate for foreign undertrial accused. The Court noted that none of the Embassies/High Commissions may be able to give such assurances, making the condition impractical. The Court clarified that this condition was intended as a one-time direction applicable to pending cases of accused in jail and not a mandatory requirement for all future cases. The Court also emphasized that if the Embassy/High Commission declines or fails to issue the certificate within a reasonable time, the condition should be deleted, and alternative conditions like surrendering the passport and reporting to the local police station/Trial Court could be imposed. Condition of Dropping a PIN on Google Maps: The Court examined the technical aspects of the condition requiring the appellant to drop a PIN on Google Maps. An affidavit from Google LLC clarified that dropping a PIN does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device and is thus redundant for monitoring purposes. The Court held that such a condition would violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that imposing any bail condition that allows the Police/Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused would infringe on the accused's privacy rights. Therefore, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps was deemed arbitrary and was ordered to be deleted. Applicability of Section 439 of the CrPC in Granting Bail: Section 439 of the CrPC deals with the power of a Court of Sessions or a High Court to grant bail in non-bailable offenses. The Court reiterated that while granting bail under Section 439, the conditions imposed must be in terms of Section 437(3) of the CrPC. The conditions should ensure that the accused does not interfere with the investigation, remains available for the trial, and does not commit any offense. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or extend beyond the ends of the provision. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in Granting Bail: The Court noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes additional limitations on granting bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics. However, once a case is made out for granting bail under Section 37, the conditions of bail must align with Section 437(3) of the CrPC. The Court highlighted that the CrPC provisions apply to arrests made under the NDPS Act, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Interpretation of "Interest of Justice" in Section 437(3) of the CrPC: The Court referred to its decision in Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74, which held that the phrase "interest of justice" in Section 437(3) means "good administration of justice" or "advancing the trial process." The Court stated that bail conditions must be within the four corners of Section 437(3) and should not be arbitrary or fanciful. The conditions should ensure the accused's availability for trial and prevent interference with the investigation. Constitutional Rights Under Article 21 in Relation to Bail Conditions: The Court emphasized that even an accused released on bail retains their constitutional rights under Article 21. The Court held that bail conditions should curtail the accused's freedom only to the minimum extent required. Conditions that infringe on the right to privacy, such as constant monitoring of the accused's movements, are not permissible. The Court reiterated that the object of bail conditions is to ensure the accused's availability for trial and prevent interference with the investigation, not to keep the accused under constant surveillance. Conclusion: The Supreme Court deleted the conditions requiring the appellant to obtain a certificate from the Embassy/High Commission and to drop a PIN on Google Maps. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and should not infringe on the constitutional rights of the accused. The case was listed for further orders on 15 July 2024, to consider the appellant's compliance with the remaining bail conditions.
|
