FRANK VITUS vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, 2024
Case Title and Citation: FRANK VITUS V. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2024 INSC 479 (8 July 2024) Justices: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Factual Background
The Appellant, a Nigerian national, was arrested on May 21, 2014, and is being prosecuted for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29. The charges relate to the production, sale, use, import, and export of narcotics/psychotropic substances. The Appellant was ordered to be released on bail on May 31, 2022, subject to various conditions. The Appellant appealed the conditions imposed, specifically challenging the requirement to obtain a certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria and the requirement to “drop a PIN” on Google Maps for location tracking by the Investigating Officer. The terms and conditions incorporated in the bail order were based on earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994 INSC 456).
Issue(s)
- Whether requiring an accused person who is a foreign national to obtain a Certificate of Assurance from their High Commission or Embassy guaranteeing their presence in India and appearance in court is a necessary and non-negotiable condition for granting bail.
- Whether requiring an accused person to share their location by dropping a PIN on Google Maps with the Investigating Officer, as a condition for bail, violates the accused’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the deletion of two conditions from the bail order: the requirement to obtain a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission, and the condition requiring the dropping of a PIN on Google Maps. The Court affirmed that bail conditions must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or overly restrictive.
Reason for the decision
- Redundancy of Google Maps PIN: Based on an affidavit filed by Google LLC, the Court determined that dropping a PIN on Google Maps provides only a static location determined by the user, and does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device. Since the condition fails to achieve the objective of real-time monitoring, it is redundant and does not aid the Narcotics Control Bureau. Furthermore, imposing a bail condition that allows the police to track every movement of the accused, whether through technology or otherwise, violates the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Excessiveness of Embassy Certificate: The requirement for a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission (as stipulated in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) was originally intended to operate as a one-time direction for cases pending at the time of that 1994 judgment, and is not a blanket mandatory condition for every case involving foreign nationals. The imposition of such a condition can be impossible for the accused to comply with, especially if the Embassy declines or fails to act within a reasonable timeframe, potentially frustrating the bail order itself. If the Court grants bail, it cannot be denied merely because a condition, which is beyond the accused’s control, is not met. More reasonable alternative conditions, such as the surrender of the passport and regularly reporting to the local police station or trial court, can be imposed instead.
- Scope of Bail Conditions: Bail conditions imposed under Section 437(3) of the CrPC, even those imposed “in the interest of justice,” must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or freakish. The object of conditions is narrowly defined: to ensure the accused attends court, does not commit similar offenses, and does not tamper with evidence. The freedom of an accused, who is presumed innocent, can only be curtailed to the minimum extent required. Since the Appellant was granted bail partly on the merits of the case (relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu), there was no justification for imposing all the onerous conditions from the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee decision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the imposed conditions were either ineffective (Google Maps PIN) or excessive and non-mandatory (Embassy certificate). The judgment reaffirmed that bail conditions must align with the objectives of justice and should not infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 by allowing constant monitoring of the accused. The Court further clarified that the special conditions established for foreign nationals in earlier NDPS cases were limited in scope and not universally applicable to all subsequent bail grants.
