AgustaWestland case: Delhi High Court asks ED to respond to Christian Michel's plea to modify bail conditions

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the Enforcement Directorate's response on a plea by alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking modification of certain conditions imposed on him while granting bail in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland money laundering case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on James' plea in which he sought the bail condition of furnishing a surety of Rs 5 lakh be waived.

The court listed the matter for hearing on April 22.

While granting bail to James in the money laundering case, the high court on March 4 had directed him to furnish a personal bond and surety of Rs 5 lakh each besides surrendering his passport before the trial court.

The accused said the condition requiring him to furnish a surety from India may be modified or waived as he is a foreign national and has no known relatives or deep-rooted connections here.

"Given his lack of personal ties in the country, it is impossible for him to provide surety from India," the plea said.

It further sought to revoke the condition of surrendering his passport saying that his old passport has expired and the process of obtaining a new one is likely to take at least 4-8 weeks.

James was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the related CBI case on February 18.

The high court had granted him the relief in the ED case, saying it was an "exceptional situation" where the accused was in custody for over 6.2 years but the trial had not yet commenced due to incomplete investigation.

It had said James' prolonged incarceration "without any foreseeable conclusion of trial" would infringe his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which overrode the statutory bar on bail under the anti-money laundering law.

Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the judge had said, imposed stringent conditions for the grant of bail but the provision couldn't be interpreted in a manner to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time.

"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," the high court had said.

Taking into account the directions of the top court, the high court had asked the ED to request the trial court for imposing necessary conditions before releasing James on bail.

Probe agencies reported irregularities in the purchase of 12 VVIP helicopters from Italian manufacturing company AgustaWestland.

The ED counsel had opposed James' plea, saying the British national did not meet the "twin tests" for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and was a flight risk.

His lawyer had sought the relief on grounds that while the anti-money laundering law has a maximum punishment of seven years, he had spent over six years in jail, in violation of his fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.

James was extradited from Dubai in December 2018 and was subsequently arrested by the CBI and the ED.

James is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case, the other two being Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.

The CBI, in its charge sheet, claimed an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.

The ED charge sheet filed against James in June 2016 alleged he received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.