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 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.FindingsA 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...

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

Akshita Saxena

Tags