The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently dealt with a unique condition of bail imposed by the Delhi High Court on the Appellant involving Google Maps and further reassessed a condition set by the Court when releasing foreign nationals on bail¹. The Appellant was arrested for an offence punishable under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions.

Google Map Pin condition
One of the odd conditions imposed was that the Accused shall drop a Pin on Google Map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigating Officer. While dealing with this issue of the condition of dropping a Pin on Google Maps, the Apex Court observed that it gives an impression that the condition will enable the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to monitor the movements of the Accused on a real-time basis, which would be violative of the Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. To understand the technical aspects of “dropping a Pin on Google Map”, the Court issued a notice to Google LLC, having its office in the USA.

The affidavit filed by Google LLC stated that the user has full control over sharing PINs with other users. Moreover, it does not impinge on the user’s privacy, as the user retains full control. Most importantly, it stated that the PIN location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or the user’s device. Therefore, the condition of the Accused dropping a pin on Google Maps, as it stands, is completely redundant as the same does not help the NCB.

Thus, the Apex Court 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 would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, in the present case, the requirement for the Accused to drop a Pin on Google Maps was imposed without assessing its technical effectiveness or practical utility as can be seen in the affidavit filed by Google LLC, and therefore ordered that this condition be deleted.

Condition to furnish a Certificate of Assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria
Another condition imposed was that the Certificate of Assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria that the Accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Learned Special Judge as and when required, was to be procured and placed on record. This condition was imposed by the Delhi High Court relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors, (1994) 6 SCC 731.

The Apex Court, however in the present case, observed that the directions were to operate as one-time directions applicable only to the pending cases of the Accused who were in jail on the date of the judgment. Thus it was held that the conditions enlisted in the judgement were required to be incorporated in the order while releasing an accused on bail as a one-time measure.

The Court held that the 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, 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. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court ordered for this condition to also be deleted.

Thus, the Court held that it is not necessary that where bail is granted to a foreign national in an NDPS case, on the ground of long incarceration of more than 50% of the minimum sentence, the condition of obtaining a ‘certificate of assurance’ from the Embassy/High Commission should be incorporated.

By - Lakshmi Raman