The Delhi High Court refused to release Christian Michel, accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, dismissing his petition and stressing that the legal process must continue. The court said custody will remain until proceedings conclude as required.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by Christian Michel, an accused in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, seeking release from custody.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja also rejected Michel’s challenge to provisions of the India–UAE extradition treaty.
Michel had asked the court to rule that Section 21 of the Extradition Act which prevents India from prosecuting an extradited person for any offence not explicitly specified in the extradition order should override the 1999 India–UAE extradition treaty.
ALSO READ: Tihar Jail Authorities Deny Remission to Christian Michel James in AgustaWestland Case
The treaty allows prosecution not only for offences listed in the extradition but also for other “connected” offences.
He also challenged the trial court’s refusal of his application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for release from jail.
A British national, Michel was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, and has remained in custody since then.
He is accused of acting as a middleman to help AgustaWestland win a contract from the then-Congress-led Indian government for VVIP helicopters. The prosecution alleges Michel entered into as many as twelve contracts with AgustaWestland to conceal illicit commissions or kickbacks totaling €42.27 million related to the helicopter procurement.
The CBI says bribes of about US$33 million were routed through bank accounts in the UK and the UAE.
This was Michel’s second challenge to the India–UAE treaty before the High Court.
Earlier, On November 17, the court had declined to entertain a plea seeking a declaration that Article 17 of the extradition treaty was illegal, observing that Michel had not sought any consequential relief in that petition.
At the heart of Michel’s current challenge was his contention that Indian authorities cannot invoke Article 17 of the India–UAE treaty, which permits trial for offences “connected” to those for which extradition was sought. He argued that this provision conflicts with Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which bars prosecution for offences not expressly included in the extradition order.
The petition alleged that Indian investigators sidestepped this protection by invoking Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (punishable by life imprisonment) through supplementary chargesheets, even though that offence was not included in the extradition order issued by the Dubai courts.
Michel further argued that he had already served the maximum sentence for the offences for which he was extradited and that his continued detention in India was unlawful.
The 2017 CBI chargesheet originally named him under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which at the time carried a maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment, the petition noted.
It claimed that Michel’s total period in custody, including time spent during extradition proceedings in the UAE, had exceeded that statutory maximum.
Advocate Aljo K Joseph represented Christian Michel.
The Central government was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain, and the CBI was represented by Additional Solicitor General DP Singh.