Continuous Mobile Location-Sharing Cannot Be Imposed As A Bail Condition: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has held that a bail condition requiring an accused to keep his mobile phone location turned on at all times and share his live location with the Investigating Officer amounts to continuous electronic surveillance and cannot be sustained as a valid condition for the grant of bail.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing the said condition and disposing of Criminal Petition No. 15356 of 2025 in Shashi Kumar @ Shashi Poojary vs. State of Karnataka, held that such a condition stands on a different footing from other permissible bail conditions and cannot be imposed on an accused person.

The petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, for offences under Sections 384, 507, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was pending before the Court of the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Udupi District, Udupi.

The Sessions Court had imposed seven conditions upon the grant of anticipatory bail. Six of these—execution of a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum; refraining from criminal activities; regular attendance at trial; not threatening or inducing the victim or witnesses; marking attendance before the complainant police on the second Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the conclusion of the trial; and filing an affidavit disclosing the particulars of the mobile handset and SIM card being used—were not challenged. The seventh condition, however, required the petitioner to keep his mobile phone location turned on at all times so as to remain available to the Investigating Officer.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (also filed under Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.), seeking modification or relaxation of the conditions imposed. The matter was listed on 15.04.2026, but there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It was thereafter listed on 22.04.2026 as a last chance; however, again no representation appeared on the petitioner’s behalf. The Court nonetheless proceeded to examine the conditions on the basis of the record.

Finding that all other six conditions were standard and unexceptionable bail conditions that did not warrant interference, the Court focused on Condition No. 7. It held that a direction requiring an accused to keep his mobile location permanently turned on and accessible to the Investigating Officer amounts to subjecting him to continuous electronic surveillance, which cannot be a valid or permissible condition for the grant of bail. The Court drew a distinction between this condition and the remaining six, which are established and lawful conditions appropriately attached to bail, and held that Condition No. 7 stood on an entirely different footing.

Accordingly, Condition No. 7 was quashed and the petition was disposed of. The remaining six bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court were left undisturbed.

Case Title: Shashi Kumar @ Shashi Poojary vs. State of Karnataka

[Read Order]