TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court in paragraph no.15 of its decision in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731. The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under the NDPS. 3. The grievances in this appeal have been summed up in the order dated 21st July 2023 passed by this Court, which reads thus: "The petitioner is aggrieved by the following condition imposed while granting bail: ".. the learned Special Judge, NDPS seized of the trial in SC No.27/14 shall ensure that the certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria is placed on record that the applicants/accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the learned Special Judge as and when required, in as much as, the complaint filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau under Sections 8/22/23/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 indicates that the appellants are residents of Nigeria.." In the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. vs Union Of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 731] Clause (iv) reads as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice: [Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under subsection (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application.] [(1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under subsection (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]. (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail]" Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court's power to grant bail is constrained by Subsection 1(b)(ii). However, once a case is made out for a grant of bail in accordance with Section 37, the conditions of bail will have to be in terms of Section 437(3) of the CrPC. The reason is that because of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of the CrPC apply to the arrests made under the NDPS Act insofar as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. 5. Apart from conditions (a) to (c) in Section 437(3) of the CrPC, there is a power to impose additional conditions "in the interest of justice". The scope of the concept of "interest of justice" in Section 437(3) of the CrPC has been considered by this Court in the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus: "9. There is no dispute that clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows courts to impose such conditions in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditions. While imposing bail conditions, the Constitutional rights of an accused, who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. Even an accused convicted by a competent Court and undergoing a sentence in prison is not deprived of all his rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This Court, in the case of State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, (2000) 5 SCC 712 reiterated the settled position by holding as follows: "22. Right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. A prisoner, be he a convict or undertrial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights." (emphasis added) 7.1. We are dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CONDITION OF DROPPING PIN ON GOOGLE MAP 10. Firstly, we will deal with the issue of the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps. The condition imposed on the appellant of dropping a PIN on Google Map gives an impression that the condition will enable the first respondent Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to monitor the movements of the accused on a realtime basis, which will be violative of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To understand the technical aspects of "dropping a PIN on Google Map", we issued a notice to Google LLC, having its office in the USA. Accordingly, Shri R. Suresh Babu, authorised signatory of Google LLC, has filed an affidavit. Paragraphs 5 to 10 of his affidavit read thus: "5. Google Maps is a web and appbased service that enables users to search for and navigate to local places. It inter alia offers realtime traffic conditions, and route planning for travelling by foot, car, bike, air, and public transportation. Google Maps can be accessed through the Google Maps application available on mobiles or through a web browser at www.google.com/maps. 6. One of the features available to users on Google....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice. Even if the PIN were to coincide with a user's location at a given time, this would (a) be the static location pinned by the user; and (b) only be accessible to others when a user affirmatively shares the PIN with them by clicking on the share button." ( emphasis added ) 10.1. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, 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 is stated that the PIN location does not enable realtime 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 first respondent. 10.2. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y case be released on bail. ............." ( emphasis added ) In the same paragraph 15, directions have been issued which read thus: "We, therefore, direct as under: (i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. (ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eave the country and shall appear before the Special Court as and when required; (v) the undertrial accused shall not leave the area in relation to which the Special Court is constituted except with the permission of the learned Special Judge; (vi) the undertrial accused may furnish bail by depositing cash equal to the bail amount; (vii) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; and (viii) after the release of the undertrial accused pursuant to this order, the cases of those undertrials who have not been released and are in jail will be accorded priority and the Special Court will proceed with them as provided in Section 309 of the Code." (emphasis added) However, paragraph 16 is relevant, which reads thus: "16. We may state that the above are intended to operate as onetime directions for cases in which the accused persons are in jail and their trials are delayed. They are not intended to interfere with the Special Court's power to grant bail under Section 37 of the Act. The Special Court will be free to exercis....