New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday dismissed the bail application of British national and AgustaWestland chopper scam accused Christian Michel, noting that the allegations against him are serious in nature.
Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts Arvind Kumar dismissed Michel’s plea, claiming parity with other accused in the case, saying he cannot claim parity with other accused in view of his conduct and being a British national having no roots in India.
He also dismissed Michel’s contention that a trial was conducted against him on the same set of charges in Italy and the Italian court had acquitted him of the same allegations.
The court also noted that the judgement of the Italian court was in respect of other accused persons and on different issues like international bribery and tax fraud committed in 2009-2010.
The judge said in the current case the accused is facing criminal proceedings under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections for corruption, cheating and other punishable offences and the decision of the Italian court does not have any bearing on the proceedings of the present case.
“I do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail with the overall facts and circumstances, serious nature of accusations, gravity of offence and aforesaid conduct of the accused. Application for bail filed by accused is, thus, dismissed,” the judge said.
Michel had sought bail while claiming that all the main accused were granted bail in the case and that the prosecution did not objected to the bail application of government officials who were arrayed as accused, he had already spent more than four years and two months in addition to the period which he spent in Dubai jail.
The Supreme Court had, on February 27, declined to entertain the bail plea of Michel.
A bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala had observed that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), would not be applicable in the instant case and it will not allow Section 436A plea.
“We find no merit in the special leave petition,” said the bench, adding that this order would not come in the way of the petitioner moving the trial court for regular bail.
