Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case

Akshita Saxena

11 March 2022 7:06 AM GMT

  • Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case

    The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year. Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for...

    The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the bail applications filed by Christian James Michel, facing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with Augusta Westland case. The bail pleas were moved in July last year. 

    Justice Manoj Ohri pronounced the order today after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph for Michel, Advocate DP Singh for CBI and ASG SV Raju for the ED.

    "The allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature, for having committed a grave economic offence. He is reported to have transferred confidential information regarding the VVIP helicopters deal to AWIL, in order to influence the deal in its favor. He is also accused of having facilitated the payment of kickbacks/bribe amounts by AWIL to Indian bureaucrats, politicians, etc. in connection with the deal. For his services, he is alleged to have received Euro 30 million from AWIL, which amount is stated to have been routed further through his companies to coaccused persons/entities and later projected as untainted," the Court said.

    The CBI has opposed Michel's bail saying that he is a British national not having roots in India, and is at flight risk. It was also stated that he acted as a middleman, received money pursuant to certain contracts concerning the scam, and is not cooperating in the investigation.

    The agency further alleged that two companies owned by Michel, one based in Dubai and another in London, received over 40 million dollars from Agusta Westland, against certain contract service agreements. It presented Tabular charts explaining the agreements, the money flow, and produced copies of some invoices and payment proofs, to establish that money flowed to Michel's companies.

    Opposing his bail, the ED asserted that by reducing the height of Choppers, Michel has interfered with crucial defence equipment needed in high altitude areas like Ladakh. It further refuted the claim made by Michel's counsel that he was exonerated by an Italian court of all charges and insisted that bail must be denied for misleading the court.

    It was further stated that rigours on grant of bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will apply in this case.

    Michel's counsel on the other and argued that mere fact of not having deep rooted connections in India cannot be a ground for the Trial Court to deny him bail. He assured the Court that Michel will cooperate in the investigations.

    Joseph also placed on record today a letter purportedly issued by the British High Commission to the Ministry of External Affairs, clarifying that no travel document will be issued to Michel without court's approval. Presently, his passport is in CBI's custody.

    He also refuted ED's claim regarding rigours of bail and argued that the provision, amended in 2018, cannot be applied retrospectively to Michel, chargesheet against whom was filed in 2016.

    Findings

    A preliminary submission was also made by Michel that the Italian Court has already tried and acquitted him and other accused persons after considering all materials and documents.

    Rejecting this contention, the Court noted that he was not a "party" before the Italian Court. Moreover, the trial in Italy was concluded in the year 2014, whereas the charge sheet in the predicate offence was only filed in the year 2017 on the basis of material which was not available with the Italian Courts.

    Reliance was placed on Piara Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (1969) 1 SCC 379, where it has been observed that when a finding of fact has been recorded in favor of the accused in earlier proceedings before a competent Court, the same will not operate as a bar to the trial or conviction of the accused for a subsequent distinct offence

    The second preliminary submission made by Michel was that in view of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which adopts the "Doctrine of Specialty", he cannot be tried for offences other than for which he was extradited

    In this regard, the Court made reference to the judgment passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, which had made note of the extradition request. As per the said judgment, Indian authorities had sought to extradite Michael on charge of "misuse of occupation or position, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification". Further, offences under Sections 3/4 PMLA was alleged under supplementary complaint.

    Thus, on a plain reading of the judgment passed by the Dubai Supreme Court and the Extradition Treaty signed between UAE and the Republic of India, the Court said it prima facie finds no merit in the submission made on behalf of the applicant.

    A third preliminary submission made on behalf of Michel was that he was subject of rendition and kept in illegal custody by the ED. Reliance was placed on a finding recorded in favor of Michel by the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

    In connection with this issue, the Court noted that even though the UNHRC WGAD opinion relates to the present applicant, it was predominantly based on allegations and limited information received from an unidentified source. Besides, the Special Court, which was seized of all developments, has dealt with the issue in the order dated 18.06.2021 and observed that the opinion had neither binding nor persuasive value over the Special Court, which had jurisdiction over the case and was in possession of the charge sheet, the supplementary charge sheet, including the statements of witnesses, and the documents relied upon by the investigating agency.

    Finally, on the issue of flight risk, the Court observed that merely because an accused is a foreign national, bail cannot be denied as a matter of course. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the facts of this case, which indicate as to how Michel evaded investigation.

    "The applicant could be brought to India only after going through the process of extradition, which in fact was vehemently opposed by him, as apparent from the judgment of the Dubai Supreme Court. For the said reasons, this Court does not find force in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant with respect to parity with co-accused foreign national who is stated to have been granted bail."

    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.

    ED had then filed a chargesheet against Michel in June, 2016, alleging that he had received EUR 30 million (about Rs 225 crore) from Agusta Westland.

    Case Title: Christian Michel James v. Directorate of Enforcement

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 193

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Click Here To Read/Download Order



    Next Story