Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently denied bail to alleged middleman Christian Michel James in the AgustaWestland Case, stating that there were "no new grounds or substantial changes in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his bail."

The bench, led by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, was dealing with the bail plea of James, a British national who is accused of acting as the ‘middleman’ and accepting bribes to facilitate India’s acquisition of 12 helicopters from the Italian company Finmeccanica.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the bail plea. However, the court deferred the hearing until November on James' bail plea in the money laundering case.

Senior Advocate DP Singh, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) argued before the bench that granting bail to James might 'jeopardise the integrity of the investigation'. 

The CBI contended before the bench that, James' release could lead to 'witness tampering' or 'evidence manipulation' provided his extensive international connections.

''The potential influence on the case remains a crucial point of contention for the authorities,'' Senior Advocate DP Singh added. 

Notably on 19 September, The same bench had previously called for the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) position on the matter as both the CBI and the ED were investigating the case.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), however, had opposed the bail application of Christian James Michel, asserting that James is a "flight risk".

Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, appearing for Christian James Michel, had argued before the bench that Michel was extradited from Dubai and has been in custody since December 2018. He pointed out that Michel has spent over 7 years in custody while referring to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which pertains to the bail of undertrial prisoners who have spent half of the maximum prescribed sentence.

At this juncture, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Zoheb Hussain, appearing for the ED, reiterated that Michel has spent a total of 5 years and 9 months in custody, as per the nominal roll. He further argued that Michel frequently visited India in the past but left New Delhi as soon as the matter came to light, which clearly indicates he is a flight risk. 

Hussain, in his plea, stated that the ED has submitted an application for segregation since several other accused persons are absconding. 

Responding to these submissions, Justice Sharma subtly remarked, "Now you have filed segregation, so what? For the flight risk, we can impose the condition that he will report to you every week."

Furthermore, the ED emphasized that the Supreme Court also refused to exercise its discretion under 436A in the current case. The Apex Court's bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud dismissed the petition filed by Michel and said, "Further investigation is in progress. The fundamental basis for bail under S 436A CrPC cannot be accepted to be valid. We are not inclined to accept this submission".

Last year in May, the Apex Court issued a notice in a bail application filed by James while directing the Central Bureau of Investigation and Directorate of Enforcement to submit their responses.

On March 11, 2022, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the British middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam cases by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

James had argued in his bail application that his detention, deportation, and custody in India were in contravention of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that he was already acquitted by courts in Italy on similar charges.

The High Court, however, rejected James's bail plea and said, "Considering the overall facts and circumstances, serious nature of accusations, gravity of offence and aforesaid conduct of the accused, I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Application for bail filed by accused is, thus, dismissed."

Case Title: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

[Inputs: The Indian Express]