Bail Condition Enabling Police To Constantly Track Movement Of Accused Can’t Be Imposed: SC
Supreme Court’s stance that bail conditions allowing police to constantly track the movement of an accused cannot be imposed:
Background
In some criminal cases, courts have started imposing bail conditions requiring accused persons to share their real-time location with the police — for example, by continuously sharing their Google Maps location. This is intended to ensure the accused does not abscond and remains accessible during the investigation or trial.
Supreme Court’s Position
The Supreme Court has held that such bail conditions are not permissible. The key reasons include:
Violation of Right to Privacy
Continuous tracking amounts to surveillance, which intrudes deeply into the personal and private life of the accused. The Supreme Court recognizes that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Constant monitoring erodes this right disproportionately.
Presumption of Innocence
Bail is granted on the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Imposing invasive conditions like constant tracking effectively treats the accused as guilty and under punishment, which is contrary to the very nature of bail.
Bail is Not to be Punitive
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that bail is a right, not a punishment. Conditions that amount to perpetual surveillance violate this principle and effectively keep the accused in a state of confinement despite being out on bail.
Alternative Less Intrusive Measures Are Available
Instead of invasive surveillance, courts can impose reasonable conditions such as:
Surrender of passport to prevent absconding.
Regular reporting to the police station or trial court.
Restrictions on travel or contact with certain persons.
Implications
Courts must respect fundamental rights while imposing bail conditions.
Bail conditions must be reasonable and minimal in their intrusion.
Real-time tracking is disproportionate and hence cannot be mandated.
The ruling ensures that technological tools are not misused to convert bail into a form of ongoing surveillance or confinement.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that bail conditions must balance law enforcement needs with the accused’s fundamental rights. Continuous location tracking is invasive and violates privacy, so such conditions cannot be imposed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments