TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision 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 under: "(iv)in the case of undertrial accused who are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or 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." Section 437(3) reads thus : "437. When bail may be taken in case of nonbailable offence.- (1) ....................................................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the interest of justice. We are aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase "interest of justice" as used under the clau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived 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 established. So long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable. He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The Courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the Courts can curtail the freedom o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ol 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 Maps is the ability of users to drop a 'PIN' on a location of their choosing on the map. Dropping a PIN, allows the user to mark or identify a location on the map without necessarily requiring access to the user's location data. Users may drop a PIN either on the mobile application or on the web browser.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat 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 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. THE CONDITION OF FURNISHIN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 sureties for like amount. (iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided, he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns 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 exercise that power keeping in view the complaint of inordinate delay in the disposal of the pending cases. The Special Court will, notwithstanding the directions, be free to cancel bail if the accused is found to be misusing it and grounds for cancellation of bail exist. Lastly, we grant liberty to apply in case of any difficulty in the implementation of this order." (emphasis added) 11.1. The directions contained in paragraph 15 were to operate as onetime directi....