While quashing an anticipatory bail condition whereby the accused was directed to keep his mobile location on, the Karnataka High Court has held that sharing the live location with the Investigating Officer cannot be a condition that can be imposed for grant of bail.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relaxation of the conditions imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge while granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 384, 507, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “All other conditions cannot be interfered with except the last one, which directs the petitioner to keep his location on, on his mobile and share the live location with the Investigating Officer. This cannot be a condition that can be imposed for grant of bail, while other conditions are.”

Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira represented the Petitioner while Addl. Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the prayer did not indicate which conditions should be relaxed. The Bench inferred that all the conditions were sought to be relaxed.

Some of the conditions imposed upon the petitioner was that he was asked to execute a bail bond for the value of Rs 1 lakh with one surety. He was further restrained from participating in any criminal activities. He was asked to attend the trial regularly and not offer any threat or inducement either to the victim or to the witnesses.

The Court had asked him to mark his attendance before the police on second Sunday of every month until conclusion of trial in the said case. The Court had aslo directed him to file an affidavit disclosing particulars of his mobile handset and SIM Card being used. He was further asked to keep the 'location' turned on in his mobile so as to be available to the Investigating Officer.

Considering the facts of the case and the conditions imposed, the Bench held that no condition warranted interference except the one by which the petitioner was ordered to keep his location on, on his mobile and share the live location with the Investigating Officer. Holding that such a condition cannot be imposed, the Bench ordered, “In that light, the said condition No.7 stands quashed.”

Cause Title: Shashi Kumar @ Shashi Poojary v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:21739)

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice M Nagaprasanna

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.