VVIP Chopper Deal Case: Delhi Court Declines Michel’s Request For Release From Custody

VVIP Chopper Deal Case

A Delhi court has turned down a request from Christian Michel James, the alleged middleman in the VVIP chopper scam, to be released from custody on the grounds that he has already spent 7 years in jail — the maximum punishment for some of the offences he faces.

Special Judge Sanjay Jindal at Rouse Avenue Court issued the order on Thursday after reviewing submissions from the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and James’s defence.

“The request of the accused Christian Michel James for his release u/sec. 436A CrPC stands declined,” the judge stated.

Section 467 IPC Key To Decision

The court made it clear that similar pleas by James had already been rejected by the trial court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. Judges at every stage have held that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply in his case because, alongside charges under Sections 415, 420, and 120B of the IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he is also accused under Section 467 IPC, which carries a possible life sentence.

Given that a life term is the maximum penalty for this offence, the court said it cannot be concluded that James has already served the maximum sentence. It also noted that whether Section 467 ultimately applies will be decided when charges are formally framed.

“The judicial propriety does not allow this court to reconsider the above issues again and again when the Hon’ble Superior Courts have already given observations on the same,” the order read.

Bail Bond & Visa Issues

During Wednesday’s proceedings, the court questioned James about his refusal to furnish a bail bond. He replied that no such condition should be imposed after completing seven years in jail, and described personal hardships including the loss of his mother, separation from his wife, and collapse of his business.

The court was told that James, a British national, has no valid visa and is not registered with the FRRO. His lawyer argued that the investigating agency had the duty to ensure his registration.

Defence Points To Extradition Terms

James’s counsel also contended that under the Dubai extradition decree, Section 467 cannot be applied without approval from UAE authorities. The defence alleged that although the CBI claimed to have approached Dubai for permission, it had not presented the decree in court.

The CBI argued that James cannot be freed without pleading guilty once charges are framed. The ED said his extradition covered money laundering offences as well and that the seven-year limit had not expired in that case.

James was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, arrested by the CBI, and later by the ED. While he is on bail in both cases, he remains in custody for failing to submit his bail bond and passport, which has expired.