E-Paper
AgustaWestland: SC dismisses Christian Michel plea not to furnish local address
James, who is alleged to be a middleman in the case, had challenged the May 22 order of the high court which modified his bail conditions
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by British national Christian Michel James, challenging the Delhi High Court’s order directing him to furnish details of the address where he intended to reside post-release on bail in the AgustaWestland money laundering case.
A bench headed by justice Vikram Nath further told Michel that the petition is only an “excuse” as despite getting bail in both cases probed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED), he couldn’t provide a local address.
Michel had approached the court against a May 22 order passed by the Delhi high court which modified some of the bail conditions of its March 4 order granting him bail in the money laundering case probed by ED. The top court had on February 19 granted him bail in the CBI case noting his long incarceration of over 6 years.
The HC had noted that its earlier order required him to surrender his passport and give local surety and went on to modify the conditions. As Michel had already applied for renewal of his passport, the May 22 order directed the British authorities to deposit the new passport with the court and not to Michel. It further dispensed the condition of surety and asked him to provide cash surety along with a local address to be intimated to ED before being released from jail.
The lawyer for ED, advocate Zoheb Hossain, told the court that the petition challenges the HC order which is fully in Michel’s favour. Even the bench, also comprising justice Sanjay Kumar, wondered, “Which is the condition that hurts you?”
Also Read: Delhi high court clears way for Christian Michel’s release on bail
Advocate Aljo Joseph appearing for Michel informed the court that the HC has directed the passport to be deposited directly before the court instead of handing him which is impractical as the directions of the high court do not bind an authority of a foreign government. Further, he referred to the condition of furnishing local address as hard to accomplish as he is a foreign national and has no address or contact in the country.
“I have been inside Tihar Jail for the past 6 years. I cannot fulfill this condition as it requires me to furnish a local address before my release,” Joseph said.
The bench observed, “You have to arrange for this as the state has to take care of your presence since a lot of time and energy has been wasted on you.”
Joseph pointed out that Michel’s wife has divorced him while his daughter who is abroad is in touch with him. Further, he pointed out that the British High Commission is assisting him.
The court said, “We granted you bail, now you can’t fulfill the conditions. If your family can’t assist you, then you have a permanent address in the Tihar Jail. You remain there.”
Joseph said that he even has no local acquaintances and sought modification of the condition imposed by the HC.
The court dismissed the petition and said, “This is all an excuse. Let the British High Commission take care of him.”
The HC order that Michel challenged had said, “Applicant may be released on regular bail, without him depositing his passport immediately; however, the FRRO shall ensure that the applicant does not leave the country, and the British High Commission (or the concerned authority issuing the applicant’s passport) shall ensure that the applicant’s fresh passport, whenever the same is ready, is not handed over to the applicant, but directly deposited with the learned trial court under intimation to this court.”
Instead of furnishing a surety bond, the HC replaced it with a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with a cash surety of ₹10 lakh.
The ED had insisted on a local surety to ensure his presence at trial, given the fact that he had no roots in India. Addressing ED’s concerns, the HC imposed additional safeguards against any risk of Michel absconding.
It said, “This court also directs that the condition that the applicant shall deposit his passport with the learned Trial Court (as modified above) which shall not be released without the permission of the court, shall be strictly adhered to. The applicant shall strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned trial court, including marking his attendance physically in the office of ED once every 15 days after his release.” This condition further required him to furnish a local address where he will reside post-release.
Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2018 and has remained in custody since then. He is accused of being the middleman in the deal to procure AgustaWestland helicopters and has been charged under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with other co-accused.
The ED probe also accused Michel of being a key figure in laundering the money and was accused of receiving around 42 million Euros from AgustaWestland, used to distribute kickbacks for influencing contracts.
