AgustaWestland case: Delhi HC seeks ED reply on Christian Michel bail plea condition

The Delhi high court on Tuesday sought Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) response in AgustaWestland chopper money laundering case accused Christian James Michel’s petition seeking revocation of the bail condition directing him to surrender his passport before the trial court.

On March 4, the Delhi high court had ordered for Michel’s release on bail in the money laundering case, subject to him furnishing a surety of ₹5,00,000, and surrendering his passport before the trial court, which could only be released after its permission.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice in Michael’s plea also seeking modification of the condition regarding surety, and fixed April 22 as the next date of hearing.

“Application has been moved seeking modification of bail conditions. Issue notice. Counsel for the ED accepts notice. Renotify on April 22,” the court said in its order.

Michel had approached the high court a fortnight ago after the city court allowed him to apply for a new passport from inside prison, as part of fulfilling his bail conditions.

Also Read: Tihar: Michel not convicted, can’t get remission

On March 11, special judge Sanjeev Aggarwal had allowed him to apply with the assistance of his lawyer Aljio K Joseph and directed Tihar jail authorities to provide adequate support during the process.

This was followed after Michel had told the city court that in order to surrender his passport, he would have to apply for a new one since his existing passport had expired.

In his application, Michel has asserted that he has already applied for a new passport, which is likely to take at least 4-8 weeks, and it would be impossible to comply with the conditions as of now, since he needs the same for renewal.

The plea went on to add that it was also not possible for him to provide a surety from India, since he is a foreign national.

The application was filed in Michel’s plea seeking bail in the money laundering case which was allowed by the high court on March 4.

In his application he also argued that it was imperative for the court to take note of the period of custody in Dubai and in India for computing the maximum sentence in the case.

“It is a fact that the petitioner was incarcerated for more than 130 days in Dubai. While making submissions in the bail application it has very categorically pointed out that the petitioner has completed 6.2 years of actual custody in India and also was in custody for 130 days in Dubai during the extradition proceedings,” the application stated.

It further stated that he was also entitled to remission and had already completed more than 7 years in the present case, since he had been in custody for six years as an undertrial and New Jail Rules, permit an undertrial 30 days of remission for every year of detention.

While the ED represented by special counsel Vivek Gurnani objected to the application, relying on Michel’s statement that he did not want to be released.

To be sure, on March 7, Michel had told a Delhi court that he feared for his safety if released on bail and preferred to remain in judicial custody.

“Delhi is just a larger prison for me. My family cannot come and meet me. There is a security threat. Every time I step out of prison, something happens… I request the court to let me stay inside the prison in judicial custody and attend the trial through VC (video conference),” he submitted.

Michel was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in December 2018 and has remained in custody since then. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case on February 19 and in the ED case on March 4.