E-Paper
AugustaWestland case: Delhi HC dismisses Christian Michel James’s release plea
Christian Michel James approached the high court against a trial court’s August 7, 2025, order denying his request to be released from prison
The Delhi high court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by Christian Michel James, the middleman in the 2010 AugustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, seeking release from prison as he has served the maximum sentence for the offences for which he was extradited.
“We find no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed,” a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said. A detailed copy of the verdict was awaited.
James approached the high court against a trial court’s August 7, 2025, order denying his request to be released from prison. He challenged Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, allowing prosecution for “connected offences” as well.
Advocate Aljo K Joseph, who represented James, said that he had undergone five years of sentence for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which he was charge sheeted in 2017. Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for life imprisonment, was later invoked through supplementary charge sheets citing Article 17.
Additional solicitor general DP Singh, who appeared for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, said that James was extradited from the UAE in December 2018 based on a 2017 charge sheet accusing him of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, including bribing a public servant. He added the subsequent charge sheet filed in September 2020 included charges of forgery.
Singh argued that James has not completed the maximum sentence, as he faces allegations of forgery, which is punishable with life imprisonment. He submitted that the extradition order was clear since it records “misuse of position or job, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation, and offering illegal gratification” to be the allegations levelled against him. Singh said there was no bar for trying him also for the offence of forgery, since Article 17 granted power to try him for the “other connected offences” too.
