Delhi HC Modifies Bail Order of Christian James Michel in Agusta Westland Chopper Case

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, granted relief to Christian James Michel, a British Citizen, who was accused of acting as the ‘middleman’ and accepting bribes to facilitate India’s acquisition of 12 helicopters from the Italian company Finmeccanica. He had sought modification of his bail order on the grounds that he, being a foreign national, is unable to provide an Indian surety.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, "Applicant's assertion that he has no friend or relative in India who could stand as a surety appears to be logical and acceptable... this Court is inclined to modify the bail condition imposed earlier". However, the court, to ensure that Michel does not abscond from the country, directed him to submit his passport to the trial court.

Advocate Aljo K. Joseph, representing Michel, informed the court that his client has been in custody for over six years despite the trial not having commenced. Advocate Joseph sought modification of the first and second bail conditions. The first bail condition required him to produce a surety, which he contended on the grounds that he had no 'roots in India'. The second bail condition required him to surrender his passport to the trial court, however, he argued that his passport had expired and would take 8 weeks for renewal. Michel prayed the court to modify the conditions, claiming that the existence of such conditions violated his rights under Article 21.

Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the Directorate of Enforcement, argued that the requirement of a local surety is essential to ensure that Michel does not abscond and evade justice. Special Counsel Hussain submitted that waiving the surety would make securing his presence for trial difficult and would contradict Section 441(1) of CrPC.

The court, noting that the guidelines of the passport office, acknowledged that renewal would take a minimum of four to eight weeks and thus held that satisfaction of the second bail condition is not possible. The bench also observed that "The grievance of the applicant herein is essentially that since bail has been granted to him, subject to him depositing his passport with the learned Trial Court, he cannot be released as he is not in a position to deposit his passport, for the aforesaid reason".

Therefore, the bench directed the Foreigners Registration Office (FFRO) to ensure that Michel does not leave the country and also to ensure that the renewed passport is handed directly to the trial court rather than to Michel.

While dealing with the first condition, the court considered the issue of "whether this Court can dispense with the requirement that the applicant, who is an accused in the present ECIR – must furnish a surety bond – alongwith his personal bond?". The bench emphasized that although furnishing a surety bond by a third person is the norm, it can be substituted with a cash deposit in exceptional circumstances. Such principles apply in cases where the accused is genuinely unable to provide a surety. The court clarified that the aforementioned substitution should not be granted routinely or for convenience.

The court further added, "that the substitution of surety with a cash deposit does not, by itself, satisfy the underlying purpose of ensuring the accused's continued presence during trial, unless accompanied by additional conditions that effectively mitigate the flight risk and uphold the integrity of the judicial process".

The bench also acknowledged that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is seven years, and Michel had already undergone 6 years and 5 months of incarceration without 'the trial having ever commenced'. The court emphasized that, "The continued curtailment of his liberty, particularly through the condition such as the furnishing of a surety bond – which he is unable to furnish due to his foreign nationality and lack of social ties in India – would not serve the ends of justice".

Furthermore, the court reiterated that the conditions prescribed in a bail order should not be excessive or punitive in nature, especially when the undertrial has already undergone a period in custody nearly equivalent to the potential maximum sentence. "In these circumstances, the imposition of rigid conditions, without due regard to the applicant's peculiar situation, would amount to an unjust deprivation of liberty", the bench held.

For Petitioner: Advocates Aljo K. Joseph, Vishnu Shankar, Sriram P, and Sheikh Mohsin

For Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Advocates Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi, and Kanishk Maurya

Case Title: Christian James Michel v Directorate of Enforcement (2025:DHC:4214)