SC grants bail to Christian Michel James in AgustaWestland chopper scam case, cites trial delay

“Considering facts and circumstances of the case and in particular, that petitioner who was extradited in 2018 and has been in custody for more than 6 years now, and according to the respondent CBI, despite filing 3 chargesheets and 2 supplementary chargesheets, the investigation is still ongoing as stated in the counter-affidavit. We are inclined to grant bail on conditions as may be determined by the trial Court. The CBI may appropriately request the trial Court for imposing conditions before releasing him on bail,” the bench ordered.

During the hearing, Justice Nath asked the counsel appearing for the CBI, “Why do you want him in custody, after 6 years, you have filed chargesheet and investigation is complete?” The CBI counsel submitted that Michel “was extradited and brought to India”.

The bench, however, was not impressed. “What about the trial? You don’t even start the trial,” said Justice Nath.

“It is your duty as prosecutor. Who stopped you for all these six years?” Justice Mehta asked.

‘Requirements altered in return for kickbacks’

Michel James, one of the alleged middlemen in the deal for the purchase of 12 VVIP choppers, was extradited from the UAE in 2018 to stand trial in the case. He moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court denied him bail on September 25, 2024.

As per the CBI probe, a contract for the supply of 12 VVIP/non-VVIP helicopters was awarded to M/s AgustaWestland International Ltd, UK, for an amount of Euro 556.262 million (Rs 3,726.96 crore) and an agreement to this effect was executed on February 8, 2010, between the Ministry of Defence and AgustaWestland.

It is alleged that former Chief of Air Staff S P Tyagi, between 2005 and 2007, accorded approval for reducing the altitude ceiling for VVIP helicopters from 6,000 m to 4,500 m, allowing AgustaWestland, which was disqualified in 2002, to enter the fray.

The CBI said Michel James was a consultant for AgustaWestland and acted as a middleman negotiating on behalf of the firm. During the negotiations, he got crucial confidential information about the progress on the procurement process of VVIP helicopters through his sources and passed on the information to AgustaWestland, the agency said.

According to the CBI, undue favour was given to AgustaWestland for awarding the contract of procurement of VVIP helicopters in its favour by accepting illegal gratification from it through middlemen or relatives including Sanjeev Tyagi alias Julie Tyagi, Gautam Khaitan and others by exercising influence through corrupt and illegal means and also using personal influence over the public servant concerned.

The CBI claimed that Michel James “had been paid a huge bribe amount by M/s AgustaWestland, which was paid to the officers of the Indian Air Force, MOD, bureaucrats, politicians and family in India for showing favour in the VVIP helicopter deal”.

As per CBI allegations, Michel James “entered into 5 contracts (2 of them revised time and again) through his companies M/s Global Trade & Commerce Ltd., London, and M/s Global Services FZE, Dubai, UAE, with M/s Finmeccanica, M/s AgustaWestland, M/s Westland Helicopters to legitimise the illicit commission on the procurement of VVIP helicopters by the Ministry of Defence… an amount of Euro 42.27 million was paid by M/s Westland Group Companies to” his “firms… as kickbacks/bribes without undertaking any work against receipt of such an amount”.

He “has been deeply involved in the said conspiracy and has paid bribes to different officials in the guise of contracts of availing services and consultancy from different companies during the relevant period,” the agency said.

The CBI filed a chargesheet against Michel James and 11 others on September 1, 2017, and the court took cognisance of it on October 11, 2017. It also filed a supplementary chargesheet thereafter.

The Enforcement Directorate also booked Michel James on money laundering charges and a chargesheet was filed in this regard. Dismissing his bail plea, the high court had said it found “no subsequent development or new material on record” after it rejected his earlier bail application “that would entitle the petitioner to bail”.

“The grounds on which the earlier bail application was dismissed still hold ground and there is no substantial change in the situation,” the high court said. It further stated that it was “of the considered opinion that merely on a period of incarceration, the accused cannot be admitted to bail as he is still a flight risk”.

The Supreme Court also rejected his bail plea twice earlier, in February 2023 and March 2024.