IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Christian Michel James - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Application No. 2566 of 2021, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16335 of 2021, 1126 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
BAIL - MONEY LAUNDERING - SECTION 45(1) PMLa - TWIN CONDITIONS - APPLICABILITY - FLIGHT RISK - SECTION 45(1)(II) PMLa - PARAMETERS FOR ADJUDICATION - HELD, applicant is a flight risk and there is no reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.
Fact of the Case:
Applicant, a British national, was accused of being a middleman engaged by M/s agustaWestland for obtaining confidential information regarding the procurement process of VVIP helicopters by the Government of India. He allegedly facilitated payment of kickbacks/bribes to IaF personnel, bureaucrats and politicians in India in order to influence the outcome of the procurement process. He was extradited to India from U.A.E. and was in custody for more than 3 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the applicant was a flight risk and there was no reasonable ground to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged offence or that he was not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. The Court also held that the twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLa were applicable to the case and that the applicant had failed to satisfy the conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLa are applicable to the present case? 2. Whether the applicant is a flight risk? 3. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLa are applicable to the present case as the amendment made in Section 45 PMLa vide the Finance Act, 2018 has revived the twin conditions. 2. The applicant is a flight risk as he has no roots in the Indian society, he evaded process/investigation in India/Italy and was eventually extradited to India. 3. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail as the allegations against him are serious in nature and he is accused of having committed a grave economic offence.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMLa') on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in ECIR No. DLZO/15/2014/aD(VM) registered under Sections 3/4 of the PMLa 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 agustaWestland 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 an FIR/RC bearing No.217-2013-a-0003 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 of 4572 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 agustaWestland 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. Based on the case made out in the RC, the present ECIR was recorded against the applicant and others on 03.07.2014.
3. after investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter, referred to as the 'ED'), a prosecution complaint was filed against Guido Haschke and o
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018) 12 SCC 129
Babba alias Shankar Raghuman Rohida vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569
Daya Singh Lahoria vs. Union of India and Others (2001) 4 SCC 516
Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others (1984) 2 SCC 534
Jitendra Panchal vs. Intelligence Officer
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another (2005) 2 SCC 42
Monica Bedi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 1 SCC 284
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 1
P. Chidambaram vs. Central of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1969) 1 SCC 379
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2005) 5 SCC 294
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40
State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784
State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561
Virupakshappa Gouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another (2017) 5 SCC 406
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439
The severity of the punishment, gravity of the offence, and the flight risk of the accused were crucial in denying bail.
Bail applications must balance the seriousness of allegations, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk of flight by the accused.
It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
Point of Law : Economic offences - Grant of Bail - On medical ground - When there is no bar of twin conditions contained in original S. 45(1)(ii) of PMLA Act - On merits as well as on medical grounds....
The court ruled that the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweigh the stringent conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Launder....
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.