Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held that a foreign national granted bail need not deposit his passport immediately due to practical impediments, and further directed modification of bail conditions imposed earlier. The Court allowed substitution of a surety bond with a cash deposit, taking into account the applicant's prolonged incarceration and inability to furnish a surety due to absence of social ties in India. The directives were issued in connection with an application seeking modification of the bail order dated 04.03.2025.

The applicant sought modification of a prior bail order passed by the High Court of Delhi in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court had granted him regular bail on 04.03.2025, subject to two primary conditions: (i) furnishing a personal bond and surety of ₹5,00,000 each, and (ii) surrendering his passport before the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that the passport not be released without the Court's permission. All other conditions were left to be determined by the Special Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Reinstates Tribal Woman Judge | Discharge Termed Stigmatic And Unjust | “No Purpose Served By Throwing Her Out”

The applicant, through counsel, submitted that he, being a foreign national, lacked any familial or social connections in India, making it impossible to produce a local surety. Additionally, his passport had expired, and he required it for the renewal process which, according to the guidelines of His Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO), would take four to eight weeks.

The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE), opposing the application, argued that the condition of furnishing a local surety was essential to secure the applicant's presence at trial, particularly considering his prior conduct and the fact that he had been extradited to India. It further submitted that the surrender of passport was necessary, even if expired, to prevent potential misuse and ensure trial participation.

The applicant had been incarcerated since 22.12.2018 following extradition from Dubai on 04.12.2018, with an earlier custodial period of 130 days in the UAE. He remained in custody for over six years and five months without the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court had earlier granted him bail in the predicate offence case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) via order dated 18.02.2025, directing the Trial Court to determine appropriate conditions.

Subsequently, the Trial Court imposed additional bail conditions requiring the applicant to mark attendance with the investigating officer biweekly, provide his residential address and contact details, abstain from influencing witnesses or discussing the case publicly, and cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The Trial Court also directed the applicant to apply for a fresh British passport. It permitted his counsel to assist him at Tihar Jail to complete the online application and directed the jail authorities to provide internet facilities. It further directed that the renewed passport, once issued, be deposited directly with the Trial Court and not handed over to the applicant.

"The grievance of the applicant herein is essentially that since bail has been granted to him, subject to him depositing his passport with the learned Trial Court, he cannot be released as he is not in a position to deposit his passport, for the aforesaid reason."

The Court noted that the applicant had already received permission to apply for a new passport. Taking into account the time required for issuance, it stated:

"The bail condition imposed by this Court, in order dated 04.03.2025, stands modified, to the extent that applicant may be released on regular bail, without him depositing his passport immediately; however, the FRRO shall ensure that the applicant does not leave the country, and the British High Commission (or the concerned authority issuing the applicant’s passport) shall ensure that the applicant’s fresh passport, whenever the same is ready, is not handed over to the applicant, but directly deposited with the learned Trial Court under intimation to this Court."

As regards the surety bond, the Court addressed the applicant's plea for waiver, considering his status as a foreign national: "The issue before this Court is as to whether this Court can dispense with the requirement that the applicant, who is an accused in the present ECIR – must furnish a surety bond – alongwith his personal bond?"

Citing the precedent set in Obi Ogochukwa Stephen v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court recorded: "It is permissible for a court to completely dispense with the requirement that an undertrial/convict must furnish a surety bond executed by a third person to avail bail or suspension of sentence."

It further observed: "The requirement of furnishing surety should be the norm, and dispensing with that requirement, the exception, to be made only where a prisoner suffers from genuine inability to furnish surety."

Applying this to the present case, the Court stated: "The applicant’s assertion that he has no friend or relative in India who could stand as a surety appears to be logical and acceptable."

"In these circumstances, the imposition of rigid conditions, without due regard to the applicant’s peculiar situation, would amount to an unjust deprivation of liberty."

The Court modified the previous condition of depositing the passport by stating: "The applicant may be released on regular bail, without him depositing his passport immediately; however, the FRRO shall ensure that the applicant does not leave the country, and the British High Commission... shall ensure that the applicant’s fresh passport... is not handed over to the applicant, but directly deposited with the learned Trial Court under intimation to this Court."

On the issue of surety, the Court directed: "Instead of the requirement to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of ₹5,00,000/- each – the applicant shall now furnish a personal bond of ₹5,00,000/- along with a cash surety in the enhanced sum of ₹10,00,000/-."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Recovery Order Against Auto Owner | LMV Licence Covers Auto Rickshaw Driving | Apex Court Ruling Applies Retrospectively

To further mitigate risk of absconding, it held: "The applicant shall strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court, including marking his attendance physically in the office of DoE/concerned I.O. once every 15 days after his release."

It also stated: "The applicant shall also furnish the details of his residential address where he intends to reside post-release... Before being released from the jail, the said address will be verified by the learned Trial Court through DoE."

"Additionally, he shall promptly inform both the learned Trial Court and the concerned I.O. in case of any change in such address."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, Mr. Vishnu Shankar, Mr. Sriram P, Mr. Sheikh Mohsin, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED with Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Ms. Pranjal Tripathi and Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Advocates

Case Title: Christian James Michel v. Directorate of Enforcement

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4214

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1337/2024

Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

[Read/Download order]