Can Accused Be Asked To Share Google PIN With Investigating Officer As Bail Condition? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 29) orally observed that asking the accused to share his Google PIN to enable access to his live location to the investigation officer couldn't be a condition for the grant of bail. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter involving the question as to whether sharing of Google PIN with the Investigating Officer as part of...
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 29) orally observed that asking the accused to share his Google PIN to enable access to his live location to the investigation officer couldn't be a condition for the grant of bail.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter involving the question as to whether sharing of Google PIN with the Investigating Officer as part of bail conditions violates a person's right to privacy.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against certain conditions set by the Delhi High Court in its judgment granted an interim bail to Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drugs case. As a condition for bail, the High Court in 2022 ordered the accused man and a co-accused to place a pin on Google Maps to ensure that their whereabouts were visible to the case's Investigation Officer.
Earlier, the court had sought an explanation from Google India (without adding it as a party) to get information on the working of Google PIN in the context of conditions put in certain bail orders that the accused must share the live mobile location with the investigating officer throughout the period of bail.
Further, the High Court urged the accused to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission that they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court.
After relieving Google India from explaining the workings of Google PIN, the court asked Google LLC to explain the workings of Google PIN.
At the outset, today, after perusing the affidavit filed by Google LLC, the court remarked that the affidavit filed by Google LLC was superfluous.
“Two things we want to say - this as a bail condition is hit by Article 21, and Google affidavit is superfluous.”, Justice Oka said.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee who appeared for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) informed the court that such condition is used to share the live location of the accused.
Unconvinced by the ASG's submission, Justice Oka said “It cannot be a bail condition. We agree that there are two instances where this Court has done it, but it cannot be a condition for bail.”
In the present case, the Court has examined two issues i.e., Firstly, whether a condition that the accused must share the Google PIN location with the investigating officer be imposed, and Secondly, whether bail to a foreign accused can be conditioned on obtaining an assurance from the concerned Embassy that they will not leave India.
The court has reserved the order today on both of the aforesaid issues. The rest of the issues were kept open to be next decided on July 26, 2024.
The court clarified that the notice issued to Google LLC was for the limited purpose of getting to know the working of the Google PIN.
Case Title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 6339-6340/2023