IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Christian Michel James - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2586 of 2021 & Crl. M.As. 16338 of 2021, 1069 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
BAIL APPLICATION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - 120B, 420 IPC, 7/8/9/12/13(2) PC ACT - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 120B, 420 IPC, and Sections 7/8/9/12/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court's decision was influenced by the severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, and the flight risk of the accused, who was a foreign national with no roots in the Indian society.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in a case involving allegations of bribery in the procurement process of VVIP helicopters. The charge sheet alleged that the applicant acted as a middleman, received bribes, and facilitated kickbacks to influence the procurement process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, and the flight risk of the accused were significant factors in denying bail. The court also noted the accused's evasion of investigation and extradition to India.
Issues: The severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, flight risk of the accused, and the accused's evasion of investigation and extradition were the key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, and the flight risk of the accused as crucial factors in denying bail. The accused's evasion of investigation and extradition also weighed against granting bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed based on the severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, and the flight risk of the accused, who had evaded investigation and extradition to India.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR/RC No. 217-2013-A-0003 registered under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Sections 7/8/9/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as the PC Act') by the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the material placed on record, are that on the basis of disclosure made by the then Head of External Relations of M/s Finmeccanica [holding company of M/s Agusta Westland International Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'AWIL')], Italian authorities began investigation in the year 2011 regarding payment of bribes through middlemen Guido Ralph Haschke and the present applicant, in relation to supply of 12 VVIP helicopters by AWIL to the Government of India. The Office of Public Prosecutors (Naples and Rome) began telephonic/technical surveillance of Guido Ralph Haschke and others, including then CEO of M/s Finmeccanica. The surveillance revealed that AWIL had paid bribes disguised as payment to various firms for engineering jobs. During search proceedings conducted at the house of mother of Guido Ralph Haschke, various incriminating documents including a payment/balance sheet were recovered by the Swiss Police.
Subsequently, Director General (Acq.), Ministry of Defence, Government of India lodged a complaint dated 12.02.2013 with CBI seeking inquiry/investigation into the aforesaid allegations. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, wherefore the present RC came to be registered on 12.03.2013. During investigation in the case, it was revealed that a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in March, 2002 on behalf of Indian Air Force (IAF) for procurement of 8 VVIP helicopters. One of the prescribed conditions was a mandatory altitude requirement of 6000 meters. Although 4 firms had responded, only 3 helicopters i.e., MI-172, EC-225 and EH-101 (also known as AW-101) were selected by Technical Evaluation Committee for flight evaluation. Later, only the first two helicopters were flight evaluated as the third helicopter was certified to fly only upto an altitude of4572 meters against the mandatory Operational Requirement (OR) of 6000 meters. Eventually, during Field Evaluation Trial (FET), only EC-225 conformed to all parameters.
When the FET report was sent to Ministry of Defence, Government of India for approval, the PMO highlighted in a meeting that the condition of mandatory altitude requirement of 6000 meters had resulted in a single vendor situation. The matter came to be deliberated at different levels, wherein the IAF maintained its stance with respect to mandatory altitude requirement of 6000 meters. However, when Sh. S.P. Tyagi became the Chief of Air Staff, the IAF's stand softened and the operational requirement of 6000 meters was brought down to 4500 meters, making M/s Agusta Westland UK eligible to submit its bid.
Revised ORs, entailing a reduction in service ceiling from 6000 meters to 4500 meters, cabin height of 180 centimeters and addition of the words at least' before twin engine, came into picture. With the finally approved/revised ORs, another RFP was issued by IAF on 27.09.2006, pursuant to which, EC-225 helicopters were eliminated from competition and AW-101 helicopters enabled to enter the fray. On 08.02.2010, AWIL was awarded a contract by the Government of India for supply of 12 AW-101 VVIP helicopters for Euro 556.262 million (Rs.3726.96 crores). When the allegations of bribery in the procurement process of VVIP helicopters came to light, the contract dated 08.02.2010 was terminated by the Government of India on 01.01.2014.
3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 01.09.2017 against 12 accused persons, including Sh. S.P. Tyagi and the present applicant, under Sec
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported as (2018) 12 SCC 129
Babba alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharashtra reported as (2005) 11 SCC 569
Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others reported as (1984) 2 SCC 534
Jitendra Panchal v. Intelligence Officer
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranj an alias PappuYadav and Another reported as (2005) 2 SCC 42
Monica Bedi v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as (2011) 1 SCC 284
P. Chidambaram v. Central of Investigation reported as (2020) 13 SCC 337
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement reported as (2020) 13 SCC 791
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (1969) 1 SCC 379
Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam reported as (2017) 15 SCC 67
Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement reported as (2018) 11 SCC 46
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40
State of Kerala v. Raneef reported as (2011) 1 SCC 784
Virupakshappa Gouda and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another reported as (2017) 5 SCC 406
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported as (2013) 7 SCC 439
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.