Delhi High Court Strikes Down 24x7 Google Location Sharing as Bail Condition, Cites Violation of Privacy

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has struck down a bail condition that required an accused to share his 24x7 live location with the Investigating Officer (IO) via Google. In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to privacy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan held that such a condition is unsustainable in law as it infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court's decision came in the case of Harinder Bashishta v. State NCT of Delhi , where the petitioner challenged a condition imposed by the Dwarka Sessions Court during the grant of bail.

Case Background

The petitioner, Harinder Bashishta, was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, on June 21, 2025. However, the bail order included a specific condition requiring him to "share his location 24 x 7 with the IO through Google." Aggrieved by this condition, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court seeking its deletion.

Petitioner's Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Pahwa argued that the condition was unconstitutional and contrary to established legal principles. The core of his argument rested on a recent Supreme Court judgment in Frank Vitus vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) .

Mr. Pahwa contended that the Supreme Court had unequivocally held that imposing a condition that enables constant surveillance of an accused violates the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence. He submitted that keeping a constant vigil on an accused's movements amounts to a form of confinement, even after being released on bail.

The Supreme Court's Precedent: Frank Vitus vs. NCB

The Delhi High Court heavily relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Frank Vitus case. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's reasoning, which stated that an accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, cannot be deprived of their rights under Article 21.

The High Court quoted the pivotal observations from the Supreme Court's judgment:

> "Bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself... 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 enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21."

The Supreme Court had further noted that such a condition "gives an impression that the condition will enable the... [investigating agency] to monitor the movements of the accused on a real-time basis, which will be violative of the right to privacy."

High Court's Decision and Its Implications

After considering the arguments and the clear legal position established by the Supreme Court, Justice Mahajan concluded that the lower court had erred in imposing the location-sharing condition.

The Court held:

> "In view of the law exposited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Frank Vitus (supra), this Court is of the view that the condition as noted above could not have been imposed by the learned Additional Judge while granting bail to the petitioner."

Accordingly, the High Court ordered the deletion of the condition requiring the petitioner to share his 24x7 location with the IO. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to trial courts that while imposing bail conditions is a necessary part of the judicial process, these conditions must be reasonable and cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of an individual, particularly the right to privacy.