Algorithmic Anklets: A Case for Electronically Monitored Bail (EMB) in India

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyendra Kumar Antil’s judgement opined that the subordinate courts are reluctant to grant bail even in cases where bail is the norm. The primary reasons for the subordinate court in not granting bail is that the accused on bail cannot be monitored effectively by the law enforcement agencies; and the subordinate courts do not want to be a mere scapegoat at the hands of the High Court and Supreme Court if they turn fugitive or tamper with evidence or manipulate witnesses. In the case of Frank Vitus judgment, the Supreme Court held that an accused released on bail is not required to share their Google live location with the investigating agencies. This vacuum of an institutionalized setting, under which the undertrial prisoners can be allowed to be released from prison is addressed here. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology based on secondary sources, it is contended that sharing the live location of the accused while on bail with the investigating agencies is an age-old concept. If not with Google PIN location service, the mechanism of Electronically Monitored Bail (EMB) can be developed with the help of Artificial Intelligence to monitor the accused while on bail. It discusses the implications of deploying this mechanism and reasons that it is grounded on a prison abolitionist stance and upholds the rights of the undertrial prisoners.