New Delhi [India], August 8 : The Rouse Avenue Court has rejected the request of Christian Michel James for releasing him from custody in the VVIP chopper deal case. He had prayed for his release on the ground that he had undergone the maximum punishment of seven years.
Special judge Sanjay Jindal rejected the prayer on Thursday after considering the submissions of CBI, ED and counsel for James.
"The request of the accused Christian Michel James for his release u/sec. 436A CrPC stands declined," the Special Judge ordered today.
The court said that it is clear that the issues raised by the accused Christian Michel James now, including the issue of his release under sec. 436A CrPC have already been considered by this court, by the High Court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court as described above.
"It has been held in categorical terms that the plea of the accused that he is entitled to the benefit under sec. 436A CrPC cannot be accepted as, besides the provisions of Section 415 & 420 read with 120B IPC and section 8 of the PC Act, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under sec. 467 IPC, which is punishable upto life imprisonment. Considering the allegations under sec. 467 IPC, which entails life imprisonment, it cannot be said that the accused has already undergone the period of maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences," the court observed.
The court pointed out that the question of whether section 467 IPC is made out or not is to be decided at the relevant stage of framing of charges, and it cannot be said at this stage that section 467 cannot be attributed to the present accused.
"The judicial propriety does not allow this court to reconsider the above issues again and again when the Hon'ble Superior Courts have already given observations on the same," the court said.
On Wednesday, the court reserved an order on the prayer of Christian Michel James for his release from custody on the ground that he has completed the maximum punishment of 7 years.
During the hearing, the court asked Christian Michel James, "Why is he not furnishing the bail bond?"
James said that there should not be an onerous condition upon him when he has completed the maximum sentence of seven years.
On the point of bail bond, he said that he is not the same person he was three years before. He said his mother has expired, his wife is not with him. Earlier, his business was running more or less.
On the court query, it was informed that he had not been registered with the FRRO. His counsel submitted that he is staying in India without a visa. He may be arrested by the agencies once he comes out of jail. His passport was stamped with entry. There was no visa stamp on the passport.
The court asked CBI about the status of registration with FRRO. It was informed that the FRRO was informed.
James's counsel said that information and registration are two different things. It was the duty of the investigation officer to complete the registration.
His counsel also submitted that as per the extradition decree, section 467 cannot be invoked against James. For these purposes, the CBI needs to seek permission from the extradition authorities in Dubai.
It was further submitted by the counsel that earlier it was submitted before the Supreme Court by the CBI that they have written to the authorities to get the permission.
Advocate Aljo K Joseph submitted that it is clearly written in the decree, but CBI has not produced the decree before the court.
His counsel submitted that James's passport has expired, he is waiting for the renewed passport, the filing process has been completed.
The court said that the condition of depositing the passport was diluted by the High Court in the money laundering case.
The counsel for James submitted that the condition is there in the CBI case. The court may modify the condition.
At this juncture, the counsel for the CBI, Manu Mishra, submitted that no application in this regard has been moved by the accused.
The counsel for James further submitted that for the period during which he is not permitted to step out of India, it is the responsibility of the British High Commission to provide him with accommodation. Apart from it, he can apply for Indian citizenship or for permanent residency, the counsel suggested.
On Tuesday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing a plea of James seeking release in the VVIP chopper deal case, had stated that besides other offences, his extradition was sought for trial in the money laundering case also.
The ED filed a reply on Tuesday opposing the plea pending before the court. The ED said that the submissions on plea are "misleading" and "devoid of any merits."
It was also stated by the ED that Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected.
The reply of ED also mentioned that the reading of the judgement of September 2, 2018, passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, Michele's extradition was also sought in respect of the offence of money laundering.
The agency also stated that James was arrested in the money laundering case on December 22, 2018. The period of maximum punishment of 7 years has not expired yet. In this scenario, the provision of section 436A providing a release does not apply to the accused.
On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that Christian Michel James cannot be and should not be released without pleading guilty after framing of charges. He is an accused in a section under which maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
British National James seeking release from custody on the ground that he has spent a period in custody equivalent to a maximum punishment of 7 years.
He is on bail in both the CBI and ED's Money laundering case, but still in custody due to non-filing of the bail bond. He has to surrender his passport to the court, which has already expired.
James was extradited to India on December 4, 2018 and was arrested by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case.