The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail petition of Christian Michel, a British national accused in the AgustaWestland chopper scam.
A bench comprised of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala reasoned that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which provides for release after serving half of a sentence, would not apply in this case.
However, the Court clarified that their order would not prevent Michel from approaching to the trial court for regular bail.
Background
The Supreme Court was hearing Michel’s bail application in the cases filed against him by the CBI and the ED in connection with the helicopter bribery scam in 2013.
Michel’s bail application was previously denied by the Delhi High Court because the court deemed him a flight risk, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Michel is accused of fabricating a paper trail in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, a 2013 helicopter bribery scheme in which money was allegedly paid to middlemen and Indian officials in 2006 and 2007 to purchase choppers for politicians.
The CBI estimated the bribes at US $33 million, which were transferred through bank accounts in the UK and UAE.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the CBI and ED in the matter in May of last year. The Supreme Court had asked the Central Government agencies in December whether the British national could be held in jail indefinitely without bail merely because he is a foreign national. The bench had anticipated that the trial would be lengthy.
During that hearing, Michel’s counsel argued that his case falls under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (the maximum period for which an under-trial prisoner can be detained) (CrPC). Furthermore, the investigation has been ongoing for over nine years.
Arguments today
Appearing for Michel, Advocate Aljo K Joseph argued that all of the co-accused who were extradited in connection with the same offence had since been granted bail, whereas Michel had served half of his sentence.
ASG Sanjay Jain, appearing for the central agencies, stated that the allegations include money laundering, collusion, and illegal gratification, among other things.
The bench then noted that the accused had been denied regular bail, and that the investigation and detention were still ongoing with no chargesheet filed.
According to Justice Narasimha, “It cannot be left open-ended from your end. To complete the probe, you must say a time.”
The ASG responded that custody would be required until the interrogatory letters were answered.
On the CJI’s question as to how Michel can claim that he is not a flight risk, Joseph argued that the agencies had thrice visited the accused in Dubai, where Michel had cooperated.
“They extradited me as a quid pro quo for not providing a confessional statement,” he explained.
Furthermore, it was stated that under the extradition treaty with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), British nationals cannot be tried for offences other than those for which he was extradited.
In its order, the Court stated that it could not accept the petitioner’s contentions.
