Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Middleman Christian Michel In AgustaWestland Case

Findings

A preliminary submission was also made by Michel that the Italian Court has already tried and acquitted him and other accused persons after considering all materials and documents.

Rejecting this contention, the Court noted that he was not a "party" before the Italian Court. Moreover, the trial in Italy was concluded in the year 2014, whereas the charge sheet in the predicate offence was only filed in the year 2017 on the basis of material which was not available with the Italian Courts.

Reliance was placed on Piara Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (1969) 1 SCC 379, where it has been observed that when a finding of fact has been recorded in favor of the accused in earlier proceedings before a competent Court, the same will not operate as a bar to the trial or conviction of the accused for a subsequent distinct offence

The second preliminary submission made by Michel was that in view of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, which adopts the "Doctrine of Specialty", he cannot be tried for offences other than for which he was extradited

In this regard, the Court made reference to the judgment passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, which had made note of the extradition request. As per the said judgment, Indian authorities had sought to extradite Michael on charge of "misuse of occupation or position, money laundering, collusion, fraud, misappropriation and offering illegal gratification". Further, offences under Sections 3/4 PMLA was alleged under supplementary complaint.

Thus, on a plain reading of the judgment passed by the Dubai Supreme Court and the Extradition Treaty signed between UAE and the Republic of India, the Court said it prima facie finds no merit in the submission made on behalf of the applicant.

A third preliminary submission made on behalf of Michel was that he was subject of rendition and kept in illegal custody by the ED. Reliance was placed on a finding recorded in favor of Michel by the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

In connection with this issue, the Court noted that even though the UNHRC WGAD opinion relates to the present applicant, it was predominantly based on allegations and limited information received from an unidentified source. Besides, the Special Court, which was seized of all developments, has dealt with the issue in the order dated 18.06.2021 and observed that the opinion had neither binding nor persuasive value over the Special Court, which had jurisdiction over the case and was in possession of the charge sheet, the supplementary charge sheet, including the statements of witnesses, and the documents relied upon by the investigating agency.

Finally, on the issue of flight risk, the Court observed that merely because an accused is a foreign national, bail cannot be denied as a matter of course. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the facts of this case, which indicate as to how Michel evaded investigation.

"The applicant could be brought to India only after going through the process of extradition, which in fact was vehemently opposed by him, as apparent from the judgment of the Dubai Supreme Court. For the said reasons, this Court does not find force in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant with respect to parity with co-accused foreign national who is stated to have been granted bail."