Tihar: Michel not convicted, can’t get remission
The report came in response to an application filed by James last week, seeking access to the jail conduct report of the time he spent in the prison to check his eligibility for grant of a remission.
New Delhi: The Tihar jail administration on Tuesday informed a Delhi court that Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland case, was not entitled to remission as he was not convicted yet.
The response, filed through jail superintendent before special judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of the Rouse Avenue Court, stated that no punishment was recorded during the custody of James, saying his conduct during the incarceration was “satisfactory”.
The report came in response to an application filed by James last week, seeking access to the jail conduct report of the time he spent in the prison to check his eligibility for grant of a remission. A Delhi court had earlier directed the Director General of Delhi Prisons to file a consolidated conduct report of James since his time in judicial custody.
The response by the Delhi prison stated that according to the Section 1178A of the Delhi Prison (Amendment) Rules, 2022, Michel was not entitled to remission as he has not been convicted in any of the cases against him.
Remission refers to the reduction or cancellation of a part of prison sentence of a person, in special circumstances, particular on grounds of good conduct.
In April 2023, the Delhi Prison Administration had announced that apart from convicts, remission will now also be granted to undertrials based on their good behaviour, leading to shorter sentences for those who are convicted later.
Michel, through his counsel, Advocate Aljo K Joseph, had moved an application, wherein he had sought access to his Conduct Report prepared by jail authorities during the last six years he had spent in prison.
The counsel in his plea has referred to Section 1178A of the Delhi Prison (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which states that both convicts and undertrial prisoners (UTPs) are eligible for remission for the good conduct during the incarceration period.
The counsel stated that according to the rule, the Annual Good Conduct Report for a year during the undertrial period will earn one month remission, once the concerned undertrial prisoner is convicted.
The counsel further stated that the conduct report was crucial for Michel as it contains the details of his behaviour during incarceration and given his imminent release on bail, he is seeking access to a copy of the conduct report to check his eligibility for remission.
Michel’s counsel argued that submitting the conduct report was a mandatory requirement on part of the jail administration as Michel had completed one-third of his maximum sentence in the case, which the lawyer claimed was seven years.
The court, however, questioned how the maximum sentence in the case could be seven years when CBI had added IPC Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.)
Michel’s counsel submitted that the accused can only be tried in offences for which he has been extradited, according to the Extradition Treaty, and Section 467 was not in the treaty.
Advocate Joseph submitted that IPC section 420 in the case had the maximum sentence, which was seven years. The Director General of Delhi Prison is supposed to file the conduct report before the next date of hearing, on March 18.
The court had earlier allowed Michel to apply for a British passport from inside prison as part of fulfilling his bail conditions.
This came after Michel had told the court that he wished to remain in judicial custody and attend the trial in the case through video-conferencing as he feared for his safety.
Michel had told the court, “Delhi is just a larger prison for me. My family cannot come and meet me. There is a security threat. Everytime I step out of prison, something happens...I request the court to let me stay inside the prison in judicial custody and attend the trial through VC (video conference)”.
The court had, however, rejected Michel’s submissions after orally noting that it cannot keep him inside prison and set bail conditions on him pressed by both the CBI and ED.
Michel was being produced in person from the Tihar jail after the Delhi High Court had directed the trial court to impose bail conditions on Michel’s release, while asking him to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with one surety of the like amount.
The Delhi High Court had granted bail to Michel last week in the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering probe into the chopper deal, allowing him to walk out of jail as he has already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in February in the case being probed against him by the CBI.
Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2018 and has been in custody since then.
While noting that Michel’s case was the worst kind of incarceration where the CBI had not completed trial despite filing two chargesheets and that the documents relied upon by the investigating agency had not been provided to him, the Supreme Court had granted him bail in February 19 in the CBI’s case.
Michel had approached the Delhi High Court for bail in the ED case in connection with the VVIP chopper deal after the trial court had dismissed his bail.
Michel contended in his bail plea that he had already spent six years in a jail for an offence where he could be awarded a maximum jail term of seven years. He also contended that the trial was yet to begin in the case.
The ED’s prosecutors had claimed that Michel was a flight risk with no roots in India and that the conditions set by Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not met. Section 45 requires the court to be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while out on bail.
Michel has been accused of being the alleged middleman in the deal to buy Agusta Westland choppers and was charged along with other accused under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI in its first chargesheet filed on September 2017, had claimed that in 2004, officials at Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Special Protection Group(SPG) and Air Force and Ministry of Defence, agreed to change the mandatory service ceiling if the helicopters to benefit Anglo-Italian firm AgustaWestland.
The ED initiated a probe soon after into the money trail angle following the payment of the kickbacks in the deal.
