Delhi High Court Quashes Bail Condition Violating Right to Privacy

Court rules 24/7 location sharing with police as unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court precedent.

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has quashed a bail condition that required Harinder Bashishta, the petitioner, to share his location 24/7 with the Investigating Officer through Google. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vikas Mahajan, emphasized that such a condition infringes upon the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The bail condition was initially imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dwarka Courts, Delhi, when granting bail to Bashishta. The petitioner, represented by senior counsel Mr. Vikas Pahwa, argued that the condition was excessively intrusive and arbitrary, amounting to a violation of fundamental rights.

Justice Mahajan relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) 8 SCC 415, which underscored the principle that bail conditions should not be so onerous as to infringe upon the fundamental rights of the accused or result in constant surveillance. The Supreme Court had held that bail conditions must respect the presumption of innocence and should not equate to a form of confinement.

The court observed, "The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused by imposing arbitrary conditions, as that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21."

In quashing the condition, the court reiterated that any use of technology to monitor an accused's movements without substantial justification would be unconstitutional. The decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding individual rights while balancing the needs of investigation.

The ruling has significant implications for future bail proceedings, emphasizing the need for conditions that respect constitutional rights. The petition, along with pending applications, has been disposed of with the court's decision to delete the contentious bail condition.

Bottom Line:

Bail conditions must not infringe the fundamental rights of the accused, including the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) 8 SCC 415

Harinder Bashishta v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2815706