The Supreme Court in the case Puranmal Jat v. State Of Rajasthan observed and has enlarged the man facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on bail on the condition that he share his location through his mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock.
The Coordinate of the Apex Court is yet to adjudicate upon the matter as to weather prescribing a bail condition of sharing one’s live location with the investigating officer violates the right to privacy.
The bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case observed and has passed the recent bail order in the case where 35 kgs of poppy straw was allegedly recovered from a man.
The court in the case observed and has granted him bail that he had already spent over 7 months in custody and that the chargesheet had already been filed and since the recovered contraband item weighs less than the stipulated commercial quantity, 50khs for poppy straw, the restriction on grant of bail as stated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has directed that while enlarged on bail, without leave of the Special Court the appellant shall not go beyond the Alwar District, Rajasthan and he shall make available in his location 2 through mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case observed and has orally remarked last month that imposing a bail condition requiring an accused to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer throughout the period of hi is bail is prima facie being violative of his right to privacy.
The bench in the case was considering the question on sharing of live location as a bail condition, in the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against a Delhi High Court order that had granted bail to the internal auditor of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited, SBFL in the money laundering case which involves involving bank loan fraud of several crores.
The bench headed by Justice Oka had asked the counsel for the ED that you must explain to us the practical effect of such a condition. Once a person is set at liberty, certain conditions are imposed. But here you are tracking their movement after grant of bail, is not this violative of right to privacy? The counsel, AoR Namit Saxena appeared for the petitioner.
