Supreme Court's decision on bail conditions

Reference

According to the Supreme Court, the court cannot impose conditions like sharing the location of an accused on Google Maps for bail. Also, if the accused is a foreign national, the court cannot demand a 'Certificate of Assurance' from the concerned embassies or high commissions regarding the accused not leaving the country.

Recent Case

• On May 31, 2022, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Nigerian national Frank Vitus in a drug trafficking case on the condition that he and his co-accused will share their real-time location on Google Maps to ensure availability of their real location to the investigating officer.
• The court also added a requirement for the accused to obtain a certificate of undertaking from the Nigerian High Commission that they will not leave the country (India) in the bail conditions.

Arguments of the petitioner

• The accused (petitioners) arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) argued in the court that they did not have any evidence to support their arrest. Therefore, they are entitled to bail as per the directions of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs Union of India and Others (1994).
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that when there is delay in disposal of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and the accused is charged with an offence punishable with 10 years or more, he will be released on bail if:
  • He must have served at least five years in prison
  • He must furnish a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh and two sureties of the same amount.
  • Other 'general conditions' included obtaining a certificate of undertaking not to leave the country from the concerned embassy in case of foreign nationals.
• The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioners on the same grounds but added the requirement of sharing their location on Google Maps.

Supreme Court decision

• According to a two-judge bench, if the accused is a foreign national, the court cannot demand an 'assurance certificate' from the concerned embassies or high commissions that the accused will not leave the country.
  • According to the Supreme Court, obtaining such a certificate is 'beyond the control of the accused' because if the Embassy or High Commission does not provide such a certificate within a reasonable time, the accused cannot be denied bail on the ground of a condition which is impossible for the accused to comply with.
• Google's affidavit regarding location sharing mentioned that sharing a pinned location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device.
  • The Supreme Court held that the condition imposed is totally redundant as it does not help in tracking the accused persons.
• The Court also held that any bail condition which enables the police/investigating agency to track every movement of the accused (person) by using any technology or in any other manner is violative of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21.

Different decisions of the Supreme Court regarding bail conditions of different High Courts

Related to Orissa High Court

• In the case of ‘Siba Shankar Das alias Pintu vs State of Odisha’, the bail condition of the Orissa High Court mentioned that the petitioner will not create any unpleasant situation in public and will not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity.
• In this case, the Supreme Court bench, while dismissing the order of the Orissa High Court, held that imposing such a condition would violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner and no such condition can be imposed.

Related to Andhra Pradesh High Court

• The Supreme Court, while granting bail to Telugu Desam Party chief and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, ordered the removal of the Andhra Pradesh High Court direction which barred Naidu from participating in public rallies and meetings as a condition for his release on bail.

Related to Rajasthan High Court

• Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the condition imposed by the Rajasthan High Court that directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh and furnish a surety of Rs 1 lakh each along with two bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each.
• According to the Supreme Court bench, bail conditions cannot be so stringent that their very existence amounts to denial of bail.

Related to Allahabad High Court

• In July 2022, a bench of the Supreme Court while granting bail to Azam Khan had struck down the Allahabad High Court's bail condition of sealing the Rampur-based Mohammad Ali Jauhar University.
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court had referred to matters which are not relevant to considering the prayer for bail in the context of the offence registered against the concerned accused.

Related to Madhya Pradesh High Court

• In March 2021, the Supreme Court struck down a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had directed a man accused of sexual assault to have a Rakhi tied on his wrist by the victim as a pre-condition for bail.
• The Supreme Court ruled that subordinate courts should refrain from requiring or permitting contact between the accused and the victim and should protect the complainant from further harassment by the accused.
• According to the Supreme Court, bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting conservative or patriarchal notions about women and their position in society.