BALANCING RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST: SC Ruling on bail conditions under NDPS
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Case Name: Frank Vitus v Narcotics Control Bureau
Case No: Criminal Appeal nos. 2814-2815 of 2024
Date of judgment: 8th July, 2024
Quorum: Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the appellant Frank Vitus who was a foreign national faced prosecution under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for his involvement in the offences pertaining to the narcotic substances. He was arrested on May 21, 2014, and since then he has been in the custody. The bail has been granted to him by the High Court on May 1, 2022 subject to several stringent conditions such as requirements from appellant to obtain the assurance for his conduct from the high commissioners and foreign embassies. The appellant is also required to drop a PIN on Google Maps to track his location by the investigation officer. The appellant has challenged these conditions before the Supreme Court of India for being excessive and violative of the fundamental rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether the condition of obtaining assurances from embassies or high commissioners is unreasonable and violative of his fundamental rights?
Whether the condition that requires the appellant to drop a PIN on Google Map for his location tracking violate his rights?
Whether the bail conditions are violative of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the CrPC?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 8 of NDPS: It prohibits the production, manufacturing, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing use, import inter-state, import into India, export inter-state, export from India, and export inter-state. It also prohibits the trans-shipment of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances except for the substances specified in the statute.
Sections 22, 23, and 29 of NDPS: These provisions prohibit offenses that involve narcotics and psychotropic substances and also provide fines and penalties.
Section 439 of CrPC: It grants the power to the High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail in non-bailable offenses.
Section 37 of CrPC: It specifies the additional restrictions when bail is granted under the NDPS Act.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT:
The Petitioner contended that the requirement to obtain assurances from embassies was unreasonable and was beyond the control of the Petitioner. It was also contended that the high commissioner and embassies usually do not grant such assurance. The conditions which are imposed by the High Court are also onerous because the petitioner is required to drop a PIN on Google Maps which is violative of the petitioner’s right to privacy and personal liberty and it is violative of the fundamental rights granted under the Indian constitution. The conditions are also violative of the principles of justice and unreasonable and it is against the bail jurisprudence in India.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT
The respondent contended that the gravity of the offense committed by the petitioner was severe. The NDPS Act requires the imposition of strict bail conditions so that the appellant can be held complaint and prevent him from absconding. The condition of location tracking is proportionate to the crime committed and it is an effective way to monitor the location of the petitioner due to the status of the petitioner as a foreign national. It was also contended that these conditions are required to serve the public interest.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court observed that putting such conditions for granting bail makes these measures unreasonable and violative of the rights of the appellant. The court also questioned these conditions because such assurances are generally not provided by foreign embassies and high commissions. The court also examined the condition of location tracking and held that under certain circumstances such conditions are required but in the present case, putting such conditions for granting bail is making it difficult for the appellant to get bail and conditions for granting bail should be least invasive and must also respect the fundamental rights of privacy and liberty of an individual.
The court also held that the purpose of bail conditions is to prevent the accused during the process of trial from tampering with the evidence. The conditions that are excessively unreasonable defeat the purpose of bail and it amounts to the violation of the fundamental rights of the accused. The court in this case held that there is a requirement to balance the interests of society and the fundamental rights of the accused.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court finally held the conditions on the grant of bail as unreasonable and violative of the appellant’s constitutional rights. These conditions were struck down by the Supreme Court. It was also held that the appellant should be granted bail under reasonable conditions in accordance with the principles of justice.
CONCLUSION
The judgment given in this case will serve as an important precedent in the years to follow. This case creates a big impact on the bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act. It also serves as a landmark case because the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of fair, reasonable, and least restrictive bail conditions. The decision of the court also highlights the importance of protecting the rights of the accused which get violated due to the stringent bail conditions and also hampers the justice delivery system in our country.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ADV AYANTIKA MONDAL
