Name of Parties : Appellant – Frank Vitus
: Respondents – 1. Narcotics Control Bureau
2. Union of India
Nature of Case : Criminal Appeal
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 2814/2024
Bench : Hon’ble Justice Abhay S Oka &
: Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judgement Dated : 08 July, 2024
Legal Counsel : Amicus Curiae –
Varun Navare
For Appellant –
Senior Counsel Varun Mishra
For Respondent no. 1
Vikramjeet Banerjee ( Addl Solicitor General of India
For Respondent no. 2
Amrish Kumar
FACTS
- The Appellant, Frank Vitus is a Nigerian national who was arrested on 21st May, 2014 under Sections 8, 22, 23 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Further mentioned as NDPS Act), in connection with offences relating to the possession and trafficking of narcotic substances.
- The Appellant remained in custody for over 8 years as undertrial accused due to prolonged procedural delays .
- On 31st May, 2021, The Appellant was granted bail by the Special Judge, NDPS on certain conditions as :
- Furnish a Bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties
- Obtain a Certificate of Assurance from the Nigerian High Commission/ Embassy stating that he will not abscond and would appear in court whenever required.
- Drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case.
- Dissatisfied with these conditions, The Appellant appealed regarding the legality of these condition in the High Court which further upheld them.
- Aggrieved by the decision of High Court, the Appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging these bail conditions as excessive and unconstitutional.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether requiring a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian High Commission was legally valid and enforceable?
- Whether Google Maps PIN condition violated the appellant’s right to privacy under Article 21 of The Constitution of India?
- Whether these bail conditions legally justified under NDPS Act and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
CONTENTIONS
Appellant’s Contentions :
- The requirement of certificate of assurance from the Nigerian High Commission was unreasonable as embassies are not legally required to provide such certificates. The appellant has no control over whether the embassy would issue it, making it a uncontrollable ground of condition that might possibly lead to cancellation of bail.
- The Google Maps tracking condition amounted to constant surveillance, violating right privacy under Article 21 of The Constitution of India. Bail conditions should not go beyond what is necessary to ensure to presence of accused in the court.
- The conditions were too strict, making the bail ineffective. Bail is meant to grant temporary freedom while ensuring court attendance and co-operation in investigation . But these conditions were so difficult to comply with that it makes the bail ineffectual.
Respondent’s Contention :
- Since the Appellant is being prosecuted for serious offences related to narcotic and psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, it is necessary to impose strict conditions to prevent him from absconding, especially since he is a foreign national.
- Relying upon supreme court judgement in Supreme Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India which set a precedent ordering that foreign nationals under narcotic cases should have additional safeguards before being released on bail.
- Tracking the accused’s location through Google Maps was a way to ensure that he didn’t flee or violate bail conditions.
RATIONALE
- The Supreme Court examined whether the bail conditions imposed on the appellant were legally justified and were in line with the constitution. It made it clear that bail conditions should ensure that the accused presence is assured at trial but should not unnecessarily be hard or violative of his fundamental rights.
- The supreme court ruled that the Embassy Certificate condition is unreasonable and impractical. A bail condition must be one that accused can comply with, but requiring assurance from a foreign embassy placed an obligation on the foreign authorities that had no legal duty to provide such certificate. On the other hand,, denial of such certificate cannot be a reason to refuse bail to the accused, especially if he is otherwise entitled to get it. The court held that no accused person shall be denied bail due to a condition that depends on persons beyond their control.
- Further while referring to the condition of dropping PIN on Google Maps, the Supreme court ruled that this condition could not be legally justified as it amounts to constant surveillance and tracking without sufficient justification. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guarentees the right to privacy, and imposinbg a condition that indirectly infringes that right allowing the investigating officer to track the accused with the help of technology was seen as restriction on personal liberty. The court also considered the technological aspect, emphasizing on assistance provided by Google LLC stating that dropping a PIN does not enable real time tracking . Further stating that this condition does not help the investigating agency in any aspects, making it ineffective for its intended purpose.
- The court reaffirmed that while courts have the discretion to impose bail conditions under section 437 (3) of the CrPC, these conditions must be proportionate to the objective they seek to achieve. The purpose of bail is to ensure attendance at trial, not to impose restrictions that make bail meaningless. Any condition that effectively curtails the right to liberty without legal justification must be struck down.
Removing both the conditions, the supreme court reaffirmed that the bail conditions must be fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Following are the irregularities observed in the case:
- Denial of bail reasoned on uncontrollable condition
The court imposed a bail condition that required a certificate from the Nigerian Embassy despite them having no obligation to provide it. This made bail dependent on an uncontrollable factor, putting the accused in an unfair position. The supreme court ruled that bail cannot be denied based on a condition out of control, where he was otherwise entitled to get one.
- Flawed bail condition due to technical ineffectiveness
The Google Maps tracking conditions was flawed not only legally but also technically. Google LLC confirmed that dropping a PIN does not provide live location tracking. It can be controlled and manipulated by the person giving it. Since the condition did not actually serve its intended purpose making it unreasonable and unnecessary.
- Misinterpretation of judicial precedent
The supreme court ruling in case of Supreme Court Legal aid committee, was a one-time directive for undertrials facing prolonged delays. Instead of treating it like a case specific remedy which must differ with reference to changing facts of each case, the court incorrectly applied the blanket rule, leading to unjustified and unnecessary condition.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court in the case of Frank Vitus V NCB & ors reaffirmed that bail conditions must be reasonable, enforceable, and in line with the framework of the Constitution. It struck down both the conditions of requiring a certificate of assurance as well as the condition of location tracking making them void and unenforceable. The conditions were violative of his right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore had to be deleted.
The court clarified that the judicial precedents shall not be applied mechanically and be assessed based on the specific facts of that case. Facts of each case differ therefore critical assessment of the case must be considered and the law must be interpreted correctly.
Ultimately, the judgment ensures that bail conditions serve their intended purpose of securing the accused’s presence at trial without imposing unnecessary difficulties to the accused without restricting personal liberty beyond what is legally required.
AMRUTA NANDOSKAR
SCHOOL OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI