Electronically Monitored bail (EM bail) has been incorporated into the laws of a number of countries, including New Zealand (NZ), which incorporated the same in its Bail Act 2000 through an amendment in 2013. EM Bail is a restrictive form of bail where a person must remain at a specified residence at all times unless special permission to leave is granted for an approved purpose (such as work). Compliance is monitored via an electronically monitored anklet that must be worn 24 hours a day. The NZ Bail Act specifically provides under Section 30 C that EM bail would not be imposed when less restrictive measures suffice in securing the attendance of the accused, thereby balancing the right to privacy and liberty.
Even the Law Commission’s 268th Report (2017) acknowledged the benefit of using electronic tagging to reduce the fugitive rates and government expenditures (by reducing the number of defendants detained at State expense). This sentiment was echoed by the Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, where the Court observed that overcrowding in jails and large budget of prisons were relevant aspects in context of the possibilities that house arrest had to offer.
While practices such as EM Bail and house arrest would undoubtedly infringe upon the freedoms of the accused as highlighted by the Supreme Court in Frank Vitus, they offer a viable alternative in cases where other traditional conditions do not suffice.
Ultimately, liberal bail provisions, even if at times restrictive on the accused, will help decongesting prisons and ensure that undertrials are not put out of the economy, often for good. it will also ensure that resources of the State can be spent on funding the police as also reforming convicts. The dockets of judges can be cleared up to expedite trials and the police can spend more time and effort investigating cases instead of opposing bails and tracing accused who jumped bail.
Source: Barandbench
