In a significant development, the Supreme Court has decided to examine the legality of a bail condition that requires an accused to constantly share their live location with the police through their mobile phone. The matter came into focus during a hearing by a division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, where they were considering the Enforcement Directorate's challenge against the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria, the internal auditor of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL), in a money laundering case involving a massive bank loan fraud.
During the hearing, Justice Oka expressed concern over the imposition of such a condition and its potential violation of the accused person's rights, particularly their right to privacy. The bench remarked, "What kind of conditions have been passed? See this - Google pin drop location. Total surveillance. We will have to see if this can even be allowed. Issue notice."
The controversial bail condition, referred to as clause (d), mandated that the applicant, Raman Bhuraria, must share his live Google pin location with the Investigation Officer (IO) throughout the period of his bail. The court raised the question of whether this condition could be permissible, considering its potential implications on an individual's privacy and liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case in question pertains to an FIR registered due to financial irregularities and the misappropriation of funds related to credit facilities obtained by SBFL from a consortium of banks, causing an estimated loss of Rs. 3269.42 crores. It is pertinent to note that Bhuraria was not initially named as an accused in the FIR, and he had maintained that he was not the internal auditor of SBFL during the period under investigation.
The Delhi High Court, while granting bail to Bhuraria, imposed various conditions, including the controversial clause (d), which mandated the constant sharing of the accused's live location with the IO. The court also ordered the submission of a personal bond with surety, surrendering of the passport, and providing a reachable cellphone number to the IO, among other conditions.
The Additional Solicitor General, SV Raju, argued that Bhuraria should not have been granted bail in the first place, while the counsel for the accused informed the court that the investigation was still ongoing, and the trial was not set to begin anytime soon.
In its order, the Supreme Court issued a notice and fixed the matter for further consideration on 3rd October. Apart from assessing the merits of the case, the Apex Court highlighted the necessity to carefully evaluate the appropriateness of condition (d) as a condition of bail.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
