Representative image
“The condition to the effect that the petitioner ‘should also share his location 24 x 7 with the IO (investigating officer) through Google’ is not sustainable and the same is accordingly deleted,” ordered Justice Vikas Mahajan on the plea by the accused seeking modification of the bail condition saying it was excessive, intrusive, and unsupported by law. The HC agreed and relied on the SC’s 2024 judgment in Frank Vitus vs. NCB, where the apex court made it clear that technology-based tracking of an accused amounts to surveillance and is not permitted under Article 21, which protects privacy. “The court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused on bail,” the SC noted. The SC was clear that the investigating agency cannot be permitted to “continuously peep into the private life of the accused.” It would amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even while on bail, the SC had said.
