Delhi Court rejects Michel’s plea for release in AgustaWestland case

A Delhi court has dismissed a plea by Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, seeking release on the ground that he has already spent more than seven years in prison, the maximum sentence, for the offences he claimed were applicable when he was extradited to India.

Special Judge (PC Act) Sanjay Jindal of the Rouse Avenue Courts on Thursday ruled that in addition to cheating, criminal conspiracy and bribery, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has also charged Michel under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with forgery and carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

The court observed that in view of the forgery charge, it could not be said Michel had already served the maximum possible sentence. It further noted that both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have upheld the invocation of Section 467 against him.

Michel, who was extradited from the UAE in December 2018, had argued that he faced charges that did not attract more than seven years’ imprisonment. The CBI, however, maintained that the forgery charge was part of the case and that the question of whether it was made out could only be decided at the stage of framing of charges.

The court added that judicial propriety prevented it from revisiting issues already considered by the superior courts.

Michel is accused of acting as a conduit for AgustaWestland to secure a contract from the then Congress-led government for supplying VVIP helicopters. Investigators allege he signed a dozen contracts with the company to legitimise illicit payments totaling Euro 42.27 million, routed through accounts in the UK and the UAE, as part of bribes amounting to around $33 million.

Following his extradition, Michel was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and remained in Tihar Jail for over six years without trial. Earlier this year, he was granted bail in both the CBI and ED cases by the Supreme Court on 18 February in the CBI matter, and by the Delhi High Court on 4 March in the ED case.

Subsequently, he sought relaxation of bail conditions, including a requirement to furnish a local address. While the High Court modified certain conditions, the Supreme Court rejected his plea to remove the address requirement, leaving him in jail despite securing bail in both cases.