Today, the Top Court held that bail conditions must not allow the police to continuously check the movements of the accused, as this would amount to an invasion of their privacy.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reviewed whether a bail condition, which required an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to track their location, infringes upon the individual's right to privacy. The Court overturned the bail condition that mandated the accused to share the Google Maps PIN on their mobile device with the investigating officer.

"There can't be bail condition defeating the very objective of bail. There can't be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused and virtually peep into the private life of the accused," Justice Oka verbally pronounced the verdict.

The Court also relaxed a bail condition requiring the foreign accused to obtain assurance from their Embassy that they would not leave India. The bench stated that bail conditions should not undermine the purpose of granting bail.

In the said matter, the Court was addressing a special leave to appeal petition challenging the Delhi High Court's conditions for granting interim bail to Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drug-related case.

Back in 2022, the High Court had instructed the accused and a co-accused to drop a pin on Google Maps, allowing the Investigating Officer to track their whereabouts. Additionally, the High Court required the accused to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission affirming that they would not leave India and would appear before the trial court.

While hearing the case, the Supreme Court requested Google India to explain how the Google PIN feature functions, particularly in the context of bail conditions that require the accused to share their live mobile location.

After excusing Google India from providing the explanation, the court instructed Google LLC to clarify the workings of Google PIN. Following the review of the affidavit from Google LLC on April 29, Justice Oka deemed it unnecessary. He also commented that this bail condition violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee argued on behalf of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) that such a condition assists in sharing the live location of the accused. However, Justice Oka disagreed, emphasizing that even if the court had used it in two instances before, it cannot be a valid bail condition.