On March 4, the Delhi High Court granted bail to James in the money laundering case, with conditions that he must furnish a personal bond and surety of Rs 5 lakh each, and surrender his passport before the trial court.
New Delhi, March 25: The Delhi High Court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to a plea by Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland money laundering case. James has requested the court to remove certain conditions imposed on him while granting bail.
ALSO READ: AgustaWestland Case || Supreme Court Grants Bail To ‘Middleman’ Christian Michel James
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a notice to the ED regarding James’ plea, in which he requested that the condition of furnishing a surety of Rs 5 lakh be waived. The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 22.
On March 4, the Delhi High Court granted bail to James in the money laundering case, with conditions that he must furnish a personal bond and surety of Rs 5 lakh each, and surrender his passport before the trial court.
However, James, a foreign national, argued that the requirement of an Indian surety should be waived because he has no relatives or strong personal connections in India.
His plea stated “Given his lack of personal ties in the country, it is impossible for him to provide surety from India.”
Additionally, he sought to revoke the condition of surrendering his passport, explaining that his old passport had expired and obtaining a new one would take approximately 4-8 weeks.
ALSO READ: Tihar Jail Authorities Deny Remission to Christian Michel James in AgustaWestland Case
Earlier, on February 18, the Supreme Court granted James bail in the related CBI case. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court also granted him bail in the ED case, citing an “exceptional situation” in which James had been in custody for over 6.2 years, yet the trial had not even started due to an incomplete investigation.
The High Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court stated “The present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months – which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment – without even being adjudicated guilty.”
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) sets strict conditions for bail. However, the court noted that the law cannot be used to keep an accused person in custody indefinitely.
It explained “The present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months – which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment – without even being adjudicated guilty.”
Considering the Supreme Court’s directives, the Delhi High Court asked the ED to propose necessary conditions before the trial court for James’ release.
Background
The case involves alleged corruption and money laundering in India’s purchase of 12 VVIP helicopters from the Italian company AgustaWestland. Investigating agencies found several irregularities in the deal.
The CBI, in its charge sheet, estimated that the scam caused a loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the Indian government. The contract, signed on February 8, 2010, was worth 556.262 million euros.
According to the ED charge sheet filed in June 2016, James allegedly received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland as a bribe to influence the deal.
James was extradited from Dubai in December 2018 and arrested by both the CBI and the ED. He is one of three alleged middlemen in the case, along with Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.
The ED opposed James’ bail modification request, arguing that he was a flight risk and did not meet the “twin tests“ required for bail under PMLA.
However, James’ lawyer countered that he had already spent over six years in jail while the maximum punishment under PMLA is seven years. The delay in trial, according to his legal team, violated his fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial.
