Two weeks after securing bail in Rs 3,600 Agustawestland scam CBI case from the Supreme Court, British national Christian Michel James on Tuesday secured bail from the Delhi High Court in the case probed by Enforcement Directorate case too which means that he will soon come out after spending more than 6 years in Tihar jail ever since he was extradited from UK.
Granting bail in ED case, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma wrote in the judgment: In view of the above discussion, considering the period of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the
applicant, and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun, and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, in as much as the same has not even begun as of now, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant.
Bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs 5,00,000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court, which be not released without permission of this Court, considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending. The rest of the conditions be imposed by the learned Special Court, since as per order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the learned Trial Court has been directed to impose conditions as deemed appropriate while granting bail in predicate offence, said the High Court.
HC found merit in the argument of Michel’s lawyer Aljo K Joseph that learned Special Court erred in mechanically rejecting the bail application on the sole ground that the applicant is a flight risk, without appreciating the prolonged incarceration, the documentary nature of evidence, and the undue delay in the trial.
Referring to Adv Joseph’s arguments, HC said “It is argued that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that bail cannot be denied solely on the apprehension of flight risk, especially when stringent conditions can be imposed to mitigate such concerns. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that during the pendency of the present bail application, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the applicant in the predicate offence.
Apart from Advocate Aljo K Joseph, Michel was also represented by advocates Sriram Parakkat and M S Vishnu Shankar. It is to be mentioned that Rosemary Patrizi an Italian lawyer had represented Michel as he challenged extradition to India and also was present in Delhi to brief the legal team during the initial hearings.
ED had vehemently argued Michel committed a grave economic offence of huge magnitude “The petitioner, not being a citizen of India, is a flight risk and his extradition has been obtained with extreme difficulty. It is apprehended that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he might flee to avoid the investigation which shall be prejudicial against the course of the proceedings.” But HC was not convinced.
Michel was arrested in December 2018 after being extradited from Dubai. He is termed as a ‘Middleman’ for the alleged illegal transactions that took place in the VVIP chopper scam.
The CBI had alleged that there was an estimated loss of Euro 398.21 million (about 2666 Crore) to the exchequer in the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth Euro 556.262 million.
James had challenged the September 25 order of the Delhi High Court in the apex court, denying him bail. Before the Delhi HC, a trial court had also rejected his plea seeking release from custody.
According to CBI, the accused, who was extradited in 2018 after India won the extradition case in Dubai, is the alleged middleman in the deal. After being deported from the UAE, he is currently in Indian judicial custody.
James, in his bail plea, had argued before the top court 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.
Last year in May, the apex court issued a notice in a similar bail application filed by James, while directing the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement to submit their replies.
This September, the Delhi HC denied bail to James stating that there were “no new grounds or substantial changes in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his bail. “The accused, if released on bail, could lead to witness tampering and or evidence manipulation in the case,” the HC noted.
His lawyers earlier also cited Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which allows undertrials to be released on bail if they have undergone half the sentence of the maximum punishment that they can be sentenced to if convicted.
