CLAT 2026 Preparation Plan – Click Here to Start Smart   |   Target CLAT 2026 Crash Course – Exam Date Out, Enroll Now   |   CG Judiciary Prelims Test Series – Exam Date Out, Join Now
         









Home / Editorial

Criminal Law

Agusta Westland Scam

    «
 18-Aug-2025

Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The VVIP helicopter scam has resurfaced in legal discourse with Christian James Michel's recent plea for release based on prolonged detention. A Delhi court's rejection of Michel's application under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (BNSS) highlights critical questions about undertrial prisoner rights and the balance between justice delivery and individual liberty. This case highlights the ongoing challenges in India's criminal justice system where three-quarters of all prisoners remain undertrials. 

What was the Background of the Case and Court Observations of AgustaWestland Scam? 

Background: 

  • In 2010, AgustaWestland International Ltd signed a ₹3,726.96 crore contract to supply 12 AW-101 helicopters to the Indian Air Force for VVIP transport. 
  • The deal came under scrutiny following Italian investigations that revealed alleged bribery involving former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi and his associates. 
  • Christian James Michel, identified as a key middleman, has been imprisoned in Delhi's Tihar jail since his extradition from Dubai in December 2018. 
  • His legal team argued for his release under Section 436-A of the CrPC, contending that he had already served seven years - the maximum prescribed punishment for corruption charges in the CBI case. 
  • However, the prosecution successfully countered this argument by highlighting that Michel also faces charges under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (forgery of valuable securities), which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. 

Key Court Observations: 

  • Special Judge Sanjay Jindal categorically rejected Michel's plea, stating:  
    • "Considering the allegations under Section 467 of the 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 also dismissed Michel's argument based on Article 17 of the India-UAE Extradition Treaty, which his counsel claimed should limit prosecution to only those offences for which extradition was originally sought.  
  • The prosecution, led by Senior Advocate D.P. Singh, argued that Michel could only seek relief after charges are framed and maintained that the forgery charges made him ineligible for automatic release. 

What is Section 479 of BNSS? 

About: 

  • The newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has replaced the colonial-era CrPC, introducing Section 479 which modernizes and expands upon the principles established in the erstwhile Section 436-A.  
  • This provision represents a significant advancement in protecting undertrial prisoner rights. 

Key Provisions of Section 479: 

  • Mandatory Release Criteria: The section mandates release on bail when an undertrial has undergone detention for one-half of the maximum imprisonment period specified for the offence, provided it doesn't carry death or life imprisonment as punishment. 
  • Special Protection for First-Time Offenders: In a progressive move, first-time offenders are entitled to release on bond after serving only one-third of the maximum punishment period, recognizing the rehabilitative potential of individuals with no prior criminal history. 
  • Absolute Cap on Detention: The section establishes an absolute ceiling - no undertrial can be detained beyond the maximum punishment period prescribed for their alleged offence, making prolonged detention unlawful regardless of trial delays. 
  • Multiple Case Exception: Sub-section (2) creates an important exception where persons facing investigation or trial in multiple offences or cases cannot be released on bail, addressing concerns about repeat offenders or those involved in complex criminal networks. 
  • Institutional Safeguards: Sub-section (3) places affirmative obligations on jail superintendents to automatically apply to courts for bail consideration upon completion of the prescribed detention periods, ensuring the provision isn't rendered ineffective by administrative inaction. 
  • Exclusion of Accused-Caused Delays: The explanation clarifies that detention periods caused by the accused's own dilatory tactics will be excluded from bail calculations, preventing manipulation of the provision. 

Section 479 thus represents a more comprehensive framework compared to its predecessor, balancing individual liberty with public safety while incorporating lessons learned from decades of undertrial detention challenges in Indian courts. 

Conclusion 

The Michel case exemplifies the complex interplay between statutory protections for undertrials and the realities of multi-charge prosecutions in serious criminal matters. While Section 479 of the BNSS strengthens undertrial rights significantly, cases involving life imprisonment charges remain outside automatic release provisions, requiring courts to balance individual liberty against the gravity of alleged offences. The evolution from Section 436-A to Section 479 reflects India's commitment to reforming criminal justice delivery while maintaining safeguards against potential misuse by those facing serious charges.