Conditions of Bail Cannot Be Arbitrary, Fanciful, or Extend Beyond the Ends of the Provision – Supreme Court eliminating Google Maps tracking and Embassy certification

The Supreme Court of India, in a notable judgment delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, has modified the bail conditions for Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Court eliminated the contentious conditions requiring the accused to drop a PIN on Google Maps and to obtain a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian High Commission, citing violations of privacy and practical impossibilities.

Frank Vitus, the appellant, was arrested on May 21, 2014, for offenses punishable under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act. On May 31, 2022, he was granted bail by a Special Judge, subject to stringent conditions including a Rs. 1,00,000 bail bond with two sureties, a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission, and real-time location tracking through Google Maps.

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal provisions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose stringent limitations on granting bail for certain offenses. The Court noted that while conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC aim to ensure justice, they should not be arbitrary or infringe upon fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court found the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps to monitor the accused’s movements violative of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed, “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.”

The condition requiring a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian High Commission was also deemed impractical and beyond the control of the accused. The Court stated, “When the Embassy/High Commission does not grant such a certificate within a reasonable time, 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.”

The judgment extensively discussed the need for bail conditions to be reasonable and non-intrusive. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence applies until guilt is established, and bail conditions should not amount to indirect confinement. Justice Oka remarked, “The object of imposing conditions of bail is to ensure that the accused does not interfere or obstruct the investigation in any manner, remains available for the investigation, does not tamper with or destroy evidence, does not commit any offense, and remains regularly present before the Trial Court.”

Justice Oka noted, “Conditions incorporated in the order granting bail must be within the four corners of Section 437(3). The bail conditions must be consistent with the object of imposing conditions. Bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself.”

The Supreme Court's decision to ease the bail conditions for Frank Vitus highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual rights while balancing the interests of justice. By eliminating the invasive requirement of real-time tracking and impractical embassy certification, the Court reaffirmed the principle that bail conditions must respect constitutional rights and practical realities. This judgment sets a significant precedent for future cases involving foreign nationals and stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.