LexFRANK VITUS versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 97 : 2024 INSC 479 Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2814-2815 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two conditions imposed while granting bail. The two conditions are as follows: (i) A certificate of assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria is to be placed on record that the applicants/accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Judge as and when required; (ii) Accuse shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Terms and conditions in a bail – A condition of dropping pin on Google Map: Held: In an affidavit, Google LLC stated that the user has full control over sharing PINs with other users – It does not impinge on the user’s privacy, as the user retains full control – Most importantly, it is stated that the PIN location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or the user’s device – Therefore, the condition of the accused dropping a pin on Google Maps, as it stands, is completely redundant as the same does not help the first respondent-Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) – Imposing any bail condition which enables the Police/Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused released on bail by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 – In the instant case, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps has been incorporated without even considering the technical effect of dropping a PIN and the relevance of the said condition as a condition of bail – This cannot be a condition of * Author 98 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports bail – Accordingly, the condition is ordered to be deleted. [Paras 10.1, 10.2] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Terms and conditions in a bail – A condition of furnishing certificate of the Embassy: Held: It is not necessary that in every case where bail is granted to an accused in an NDPS case who is a foreign national on the ground of long incarceration of more than 50% of the minimum sentence, the condition of obtaining a ‘certificate of assurance’ from the Embassy/High Commission should be incorporated – It will depend on the facts of each case – Even if such a condition is incorporated, on an application made by the accused, the concerned Embassy/High Commission declines or fails to issue the certificate within a reasonable time, say within a period of seven days, the Court always has the power to dispense with the said condition – Grant of such a certificate by the Embassy/ High Commission is beyond the control of the accused to whom bail is granted – Therefore, when the Embassy/High Commission does not grant such a certificate within a reasonable time, as explained above, the accused, who is otherwise held entitled to bail, cannot be denied bail on the ground that such a condition, which is impossible for the accused to comply with, has not been complied with – Hence, the Court will have to delete the condition – Instead of the condition of obtaining such a certificate, the condition of surrendering the passport and regularly reporting to the local police station/Trial Court can always be imposed, depending upon the facts of each case – Accordingly, in the instant case, the said condition of furnishing certificate of the Embassy is ordered to be deleted. [Paras 11.1, 12] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 and s.52 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.437(3) – Application of CrPC to the arrests made under NDPS: Held: Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court’s power to grant bail is constrained by Sub-section 1(b)(ii) – However, once a case is made out for a grant of bail in accordance with Section 37, the conditions of bail will have to be in terms of Section 437(3) of the CrPC – The reason is that because of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of the CrPC apply to the arrests made under the NDPS Act insofar as they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.