Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Christian James Michel in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), related to the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal. The court cited prolonged incarceration, the absence of a trial commencement, and the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to the applicant in the predicate offence as the primary considerations for allowing bail. The matter was adjudicated by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who observed that indefinite incarceration, particularly when trial proceedings have not yet begun, would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond and surety of ₹5,00,000 each and surrendering his passport before the trial court. It further permitted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to request the trial court to impose additional conditions before releasing the applicant, considering his previous conduct and extradition.

The case arises from an investigation into alleged corruption in the procurement of 12 VVIP helicopters by the Government of India. The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) alleged that the applicant, a British national, played a role in facilitating bribes through two companies—M/s Global Trade & Commerce Ltd., London, and M/s Global Services FZE, Dubai. The prosecution contended that a sum of Euro 42 million was routed through these entities as illicit commissions to influence the contract in favor of AgustaWestland.

According to the case records, the process began in 2002 when the Indian Air Force (IAF) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for procuring eight VVIP helicopters. The initial mandatory altitude requirement was 6000 meters, but after a series of deliberations and modifications in operational parameters, the requirement was reduced to 4500 meters. This change enabled AgustaWestland’s AW-101 helicopter to qualify for bidding. The contract was awarded on February 8, 2010, for Euro 556.262 million (₹3726.96 crores).

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Powers Under Customs and GST Laws, Mandates Strict Procedural Safeguards to Protect Fundamental Rights

Following allegations of bribery, the contract was terminated by the Government of India on January 1, 2014. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR on March 12, 2013, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which formed the basis for the present case under PMLA.

The ED filed a prosecution complaint against multiple accused persons in 2014, and the applicant was named in a supplementary complaint dated June 10, 2016. A Red Corner Notice was issued against him on January 4, 2016, and an extradition request was sent to the UAE authorities on December 23, 2017. The applicant was extradited to India in December 2018 and arrested by the ED on December 22, 2018.

The court examined the submissions of both parties and considered previous judicial precedents regarding prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial. It observed:

"The present case presents an exceptional situation where the applicant has already been in custody for over six years and two months, yet the trial has not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation. Such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The applicant’s counsel argued that he had already served nearly the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 4 of PMLA without conviction and that the trial had not even begun. The court took into account the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, which emphasized that stringent bail provisions cannot be used to indefinitely detain an accused when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable period. The court recorded:

"Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that 'bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.' These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time."

The court also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Udhaw Singh v. Directorate Enforcement, where bail was granted on the ground that prolonged custody without trial violates Article 21. The applicant’s case was found to be similar, as more than six years had elapsed since his arrest, and trial proceedings had not commenced.

On the issue of whether the applicant posed a flight risk, the court acknowledged that previous bail applications had been denied on this ground. However, it recorded that since the Supreme Court had already granted bail in the predicate offence, the ED could not rely solely on this argument at this stage. It stated:

"Though the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the previous bail applications of the applicant had taken note of the conduct of the applicant and held that he was a flight risk, the said argument would not be of any help to the DoE at this stage, inasmuch as the applicant herein has already been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Directs Central Government to Refer HCL Retirement Age Dispute to Tribunal, Citing Procedural Violations and Need for Adjudication

The court further addressed the application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides that an accused who has served more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence may be considered for release on bail. It observed:

"Although the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. allows the court to extend the period of detention beyond the one-half threshold based on the facts of the case, yet such extended detention cannot be indefinite. Given that the trial is unlikely to conclude before the applicant completes even seven years in jail, further incarceration would render the entire purpose of a trial meaningless."

The court granted bail to the applicant, directing that he furnish a personal bond and surety of ₹5,00,000 each and surrender his passport before the trial court. It specified that the passport should not be released without the court’s permission, considering that the investigation against him remained ongoing.

The court further allowed the Enforcement Directorate to request the trial court to impose additional conditions before releasing the applicant, in light of his prior extradition and conduct. It recorded:

"Taking into account the directions in order dated 18.02.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and lest any order of this Court is in conflict with order of Supreme Court and following the judicial discipline, it is directed that the DoE shall be at liberty to request the concerned Court for imposing necessary/ stringent conditions before releasing the applicant on bail, considering the previous conduct of the applicant and the fact that he was extradited to India."

The court also directed the applicant to cooperate in the investigation and trial proceedings as and when required.

Case Title: Christian James Michel vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1412

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1337/2024

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]