Supreme Court: Bail Conditions Cannot Violate Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court ruled that bail conditions allowing continuous tracking of an accused's movements violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. This verdict came in response to Nigerian national Frank Vitus's case, where such conditions were deemed arbitrary and infringing on personal freedom.

The Supreme Court has declared that bail conditions that enable an investigating agency to continuously track an accused's movements violate the constitutional right to privacy. The decision was made by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who were addressing a case involving Nigerian national Frank Vitus. The court ruled that such conditions, which required Vitus to share his Google Map PIN with investigators, are arbitrary and infringe on his personal liberty.

The bench emphasized that bail conditions should not be 'fanciful, arbitrary or freakish,' highlighting that the right to privacy remains protected even for those released on bail. The court underscored that monitoring every movement of the accused via technology or other means amounts to keeping the person in a state of confinement, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. Conditions of bail, the court noted, should be reasonable and should not deprive the accused of their fundamental rights.

Moreover, the Supreme Court deleted another bail condition imposed on Vitus, which required him to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian Embassy ensuring he would not leave the country. The court reiterated that bail conditions must not be so onerous as to frustrate the purpose of the bail order itself and that the accused's constitutional rights must be curtailed only to the minimum extent required.

(With inputs from agencies.)