A Delhi special court modified bail conditions for alleged AgustaWestland middleman Christian Michel while dismissing his plea seeking release in the CBI case. The court eased passport and surety requirements, aligning them with relief earlier granted in the ED case.
A Delhi court on Tuesday rejected the plea filed by alleged AgustaWestland middleman Christian Michel James, in which he sought release from custody in the CBI case related to the VVIP chopper deal. Michel had argued that he had already completed the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed under law and therefore should be released from jail.
The order was passed by Special Judge Sanjay Jindal of the Rouse Avenue Court. This decision came just three days after the same court had allowed Michel’s release from judicial custody in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case linked to the AgustaWestland deal.
In the ED matter, the court had granted relief under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which clearly states that an undertrial prisoner cannot be kept in custody for more than the maximum sentence provided for the offence.
While granting relief in the ED case, the court had noted that the offence of money laundering carries a maximum punishment of seven years. Since Michel had already spent more than seven years in jail and the case had not even reached the stage of framing of charges, the court allowed his release in that case.
Following this, Michel filed a similar application in the CBI case through his lawyer, Advocate Aljo Joseph.
He argued that he had completed the maximum permissible period of imprisonment in this case as well on December 4, 2025, in line with the provisions of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962. In the alternative, he also sought modification of the bail conditions imposed on him.
Michel further contended that the CBI had wrongly added new charges against him, including Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with forgery of valuable security, will, or similar documents.
He argued that these offences were not included in the Extradition Decree under which he was brought to India, and therefore he could not be tried for such offences.
Opposing the plea, the CBI, represented by Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, submitted that Michel was attempting to misuse technical aspects of the law. The prosecution argued that the issues raised in the application had already been considered and decided by different courts and that the present plea was only an attempt to reopen settled questions.
The trial court agreed with the CBI’s stand and observed,
“It shows that not only the issue has been raised again and again by the applicant before the courts at different levels, the issue is still pending consideration before the Hon’ble High Court…when the Hon’ble High Court is already seized of the matter, the issue cannot be agitated again before this court”.
The court clarified that these observations were made in light of earlier findings by the trial court itself, as well as by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, on similar grounds raised by Michel in the past.
The court further noted that the Supreme Court had already held that Michel’s plea for release could not be accepted.
The apex court had observed that apart from offences under Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, which relate to cheating, read with Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Michel was also accused of committing offences under Section 467 IPC. The court highlighted that Section 467 IPC is a serious offence and is punishable with imprisonment for life.
Although the plea for release was dismissed, the trial court decided to modify Michel’s bail conditions, keeping in mind similar relaxations granted earlier in the ED case.
The court ordered that instead of furnishing a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with one surety of the same amount, Michel would now be required to submit only a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and a cash surety of Rs 5 lakh.
The court also relaxed the condition related to submission of Michel’s passport. It ruled that Michel would not be required to deposit his passport immediately upon release. However, the court directed the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to ensure that Michel does not leave the country.
It further instructed the British High Commission to hand over Michel’s passport to the court immediately once it is renewed and ready.
Christian Michel is accused of acting as a middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal and faces charges under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI has alleged that senior officials from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Special Protection Group, and the Indian Air Force had agreed in 2004 to dilute the mandatory service ceiling requirements for helicopters, allegedly to favour AgustaWestland.
According to the investigation agencies, this alleged manipulation caused a loss of €398.21 million, approximately ₹2,666 crore, to the Indian government in a deal valued at €556.262 million, or about ₹3,726.9 crore. While the CBI is probing the alleged corruption angle, the ED is investigating the money trail linked to alleged kickbacks in the deal.
Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates to India in December 2018 and has remained in custody since then, until he was granted bail earlier this year.
The Delhi High Court granted him bail in March in the ED’s money laundering case, following a Supreme Court order passed in February that granted him bail in the CBI’s corruption case.
While granting bail, the Supreme Court had noted that the CBI had failed to complete the trial despite filing two charge sheets and that several key documents had not yet been supplied to Michel.
Following the Delhi High Court’s order, Michel was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with one surety of the same amount. However, despite securing bail, he continued to remain in prison as his passport had expired and needed renewal, which was one of the bail conditions.
ALSO READ: AgustaWestland Scam: Court Orders Release Of Christian Michel From Custody In ED Case
In May, the Delhi High Court further modified Michel’s bail conditions by replacing the requirement of a surety bond with a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and a cash surety of ₹10 lakh.
The court also directed that Michel would not be required to submit his passport immediately and reiterated instructions to the FRRO to ensure that he does not leave India. The British High Commission was again directed to submit his renewed passport directly to the trial court.
Earlier, Michel had told the trial court that Delhi felt like a “larger prison” for him, as his family was unable to visit him and he feared for his life outside jail.
Click Here to Read More Reports On James Michel
