Delhi HC Reserves Order In Christian James Michel's Plea Seeking Modification of Bail Conditions
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, reserved order in an application filed by Christian Michel James seeking modification of his bail order. The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presided over the matter.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), presented the application filed by James, which sought a modification of his bail conditions. During the proceedings, the court directly questioned James on whether he had moved the application for modification, to which he replied in the affirmative. The Court recorded his confirmation.
The court then proceeded to examine the nature of the relief sought. James informed the bench that he was merely ten weeks away from completing his sentence.
The advocate representing James submitted that his client was unable to fulfil the bail condition related to furnishing an Indian surety, citing the absence of friends or family in India. James's counsel argued that it was practically impossible for James to secure an Indian surety, as no one was willing to provide one.
In addition to this, James's counsel sought a modification of the condition requiring him to surrender his passport to the trial court. James's counsel explained that James had applied for a passport, but the process of obtaining one from abroad would take a minimum of 8 to 12 weeks. Therefore, the passport could not be submitted at present.
James's counsel contended that if James was granted bail but was unable to meet the stipulated conditions, he should not be left in jail indefinitely. He urged the court to consider modifying the two specific conditions so that James could be released on bail.
The ED responded by stating that the conditions imposed were fair and reasonable. It clarified that James was not seeking the deletion of any condition, but merely a modification.
However, after recording the submissions of the parties, the court reserved the order.
Background:
The case originated from a disclosure by the then Head of External Relations of M/s Finmeccanica, the parent company of M/s AgustaWestland International Ltd. (AWIL). Based on this, Italian authorities initiated an investigation in 2011 into alleged bribe payments through middlemen, including Guido Ralph Haschke and the applicant, Christian James Michel, concerning AWIL’s supply of 12 VVIP helicopters to India. Surveillance by Italian prosecutors revealed that AWIL had disguised bribes as engineering payments.
In February 2013, India’s Ministry of Defence filed a complaint with the CBI, leading to an FIR under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions. The investigation revealed that the original 6000-meter altitude requirement in 2002 had been lowered to 4500 meters after Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi took over, making AWIL eligible. AWIL won the contract in 2010, but bribery allegations led to its cancellation in 2014.
James was accused of laundering money through his firms, receiving Euro 42 million as kickbacks. Following extradition from the UAE in 2018, he was arrested and faced multiple prosecution complaints.
In the bail application dated March 4, 2025, Advocate Aljo K. Joseph contended that James had already undergone over six years of incarceration, nearing the maximum seven-year sentence under the PMLA, without conviction. Advocate Joseph argued that the prolonged detention without trial violated his right to a fair trial under Article 21.
However, the ED argued that James posed a flight risk, as he repeatedly evaded investigation and failed to cooperate with authorities. It was argued that James fled India after the AgustaWestland investigation surfaced and obstructed inquiries even after his arrest.
The Delhi High Court, after taking into consideration the prolonged incarceration as well as the Supreme Court's Judgment on the issue, granted bail to James.
For Applicant: Advocate Aljo K. Jospeh
For ED: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Advocates Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal and Harshit Kiran
Case Title: Christian Michel James v ED