A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case primarily dealt with the constitutionality and reasonableness of certain conditions imposed during the grant of bail to a foreign national accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellant, arrested on charges under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act, challenged two specific bail conditions:

1. Certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria, guaranteeing compliance with bail terms.
2. The requirement to drop a PIN on Google Maps for monitoring the accused’s location.

The Supreme Court examined these conditions against the backdrop of constitutional rights, particularly Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and privacy. The Court held that both conditions were arbitrary, redundant, and violative of fundamental rights. The condition related to dropping a PIN was deemed unnecessary due to its inability to facilitate real-time tracking. Similarly, the requirement for a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission was considered unreasonably onerous. Both conditions were deleted, reinforcing principles of reasonableness and proportionality in bail conditions.

Keywords:

1. Bail Conditions
2. Right to Privacy
3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
4. NDPS Act
5. Section 437(3) of CrPC

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2814-2815 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: July 8, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice Abhay S. Oka
vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 97
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India, Article 21
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 437(3), 439
  ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled; clarification of past precedents.
  x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Human Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arose from a bail order granted to the appellant, a Nigerian national, who had been in custody since May 21, 2014, for alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. Bail was granted subject to the appellant fulfilling stringent conditions, including obtaining a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission and agreeing to drop a PIN on Google Maps. The appellant argued that these conditions were either impossible to comply with or an infringement on his right to privacy under Article 21. The judgment explored whether such conditions adhered to constitutional safeguards and proportionality in the exercise of judicial discretion under the CrPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant was arrested under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. The trial had been delayed significantly, with the appellant in custody for over eight years.
3. Bail was granted by the Delhi High Court subject to:
   • A certificate from the Nigerian High Commission, ensuring the accused would not abscond.
   • Dropping a PIN on Google Maps for tracking his movements.
4. The appellant contested these conditions as impractical and violative of his constitutional rights.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps violates the right to privacy under Article 21.
ii) Whether requiring a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission is an unreasonable bail condition.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for the appellant argued that dropping a PIN infringes the right to privacy as it implies unwarranted surveillance without due process. This condition was arbitrary and unrelated to ensuring justice under Section 437(3) of the CrPC.

ii) The condition of obtaining a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission was impractical since the accused had no control over the High Commission’s willingness or ability to issue such a certificate.

iii) The appellant relied on judgments like Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74 and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 to argue that bail conditions should not infringe fundamental rights or be impossible to comply with.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The Narcotics Control Bureau argued that the bail conditions were necessary to prevent the accused, a foreign national, from absconding and ensuring his presence during trial proceedings.

ii) The condition to drop a PIN on Google Maps aimed to facilitate effective monitoring without intrusive measures.

iii) The respondent relied on the precedent set in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, which permitted imposing specific conditions for foreign nationals to address risks of evasion.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
ii) Section 437(3) of CrPC permits the imposition of conditions for bail but restricts them to “interest of justice.”
iii) Section 37 of the NDPS Act outlines stringent conditions for granting bail in narcotics-related cases.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that both conditions were unconstitutional and disproportionate.

• The requirement of dropping a PIN was deemed redundant, as it neither ensured real-time tracking nor served a legitimate purpose.
• The requirement of a certificate from the High Commission was held impractical and unnecessary, especially when bail was granted on merits.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court noted that constitutional rights, including privacy, must be curtailed minimally when imposing bail conditions.

c. Guidelines:
The Court emphasized the following principles for bail conditions:

1. Conditions should be reasonable, proportionate, and related to ensuring justice.
2. Bail conditions must respect the accused’s constitutional rights, including privacy.
3. Arbitrary or impossible-to-comply conditions should be avoided.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

• Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2018) 16 SCC 74
• Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 4 SCC 45
• State of A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712
• Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred:

• Constitution of India, Article 21
• NDPS Act, Sections 8, 22, 23, 29, and 37
• CrPC, Sections 437(3), 439