Constitutional Limits on Pre-Trial Incarceration: Delhi High Court Harmonizes Article 21 and Section 45 of the PMLA in Grant of Bail

Introduction

In a recent decision by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Christian James Michel v. Directorate of Enforcement[i], the Court engaged with a recurring constitutional dilemma in India’s criminal justice system: the intersection of stringent statutory bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’). This case, involving a foreign national accused under ss. 3 and 4 of the PMLA examine whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly when investigations remain incomplete, can justify regular bail under PMLA. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, the High Court addressed whether continued detention, under such circumstances, could be constitutionally sustained.

Brief Facts

• Christian James Michel (‘Applicant/Petitioner’), a British national, was allegedly a middleman in the controversial AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal and was accused of having laundered approximately Euro 42 million through his companies.

• The matter originated from investigations initiated by Italian authorities in 2011, wherein it was revealed that M/s AgustaWestland International Limited (AWIL) had disguised bribes as payment for engineering jobs.

• Subsequently, the Director General (Acquisition), Ministry of Defence, Government of India, had lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) on 12.02.2013, requesting the agency to conduct an enquiry into the said allegations.

• Based on the aforesaid complaint, the CBI lodged an FIR on 12.03.2013, alleging the commission of offences under s. 120B read with s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and ss. 7,8,9,12,13, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’).

• The investigation revealed that changes were made to the original technical specifications for procuring VVIP helicopters, making AWIL eligible to bid. A contract for 12 AW-101 helicopters was eventually awarded in 2010, but was later terminated after corruption allegations surfaced.

• On the basis of the FIR lodged by the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED/Respondent’)  registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on 03.07.2014 and subsequently filed a prosecution complaint naming the Applicant as an accused in a supplementary complaint dated 10.06.2016.

• Since the Petitioner was not in India, an open-ended non-bailable warrant was issued against him, followed by a red corner notice being published by the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).

• The Applicant was subsequently extradited to India in 2018, after which he was arrested by the ED on 22.12.2018 and subsequently sent to judicial custody on 05.01.2019.

• Since the aforementioned date, the Petitioner has remained in custody. His earlier bail application was dismissed in 2022 by the High Court, and the SLP against that decision was also rejected by the Supreme Court. However, on 18.02.2025, the Supreme Court granted him bail in the predicate offence,  on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

• The current application before the High Court was made in the PMLA proceedings, raising similar grounds of delay and disproportionate incarceration, after the same was rejected by the Special Court.

Held

The High Court granted bail to the Applicant, noting inter alia as follows:

• The Applicant had undergone more than six years of incarceration, nearly equal to the maximum sentence of seven years prescribed under s. 4 of the PMLA.

• Investigation in the present matter remained incomplete, and the trial had not commenced until now. Considering that there were more than 100 witnesses and over 1,000 documents yet to be examined, it was unlikely that the trial would conclude within the statutory sentence period.

• The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court rulings, including V. Senthil Balaji v. ED [ii] and Prem Prakash v. Union of India[iii], to hold that the rigours of s. 45 of the PMLA must be harmonized with the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under a. 21 of the Constitution.

• Regarding the proviso to s. 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which allows the courts to detain an accused beyond half the maximum sentence in exceptional cases, the High Court observed that such extended detention cannot amount to indefinite incarceration, particularly where delay cannot be attributed to the accused.  

• The previous finding that the applicant was a flight risk was held to be overridden by the Supreme Court’s grant of bail in the predicate offence, coupled with the directions given by the High Court to impose stringent bail conditions upon the applicant’s release.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Petitioner’s release on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs. 5 lakh each, along with surrender of passport and compliance with any further conditions imposed by the trial court.

Our Analysis

Adding to the expanding jurisprudence surrounding bail in economic offence matters, the grant of bail to the Petitioner in the present case stands out for several reasons. Unlike many similar decisions, this matter involved a foreign national who was accorded the benefit of constitutional safeguards under a. 21 of the Constitution, a step that, while not extraordinary in principle, remains relatively uncommon in practice.

Further, the timing of this relief is significant. At the time of the bail application, the Petitioner had spent over six years in custody, merely months away from completing the maximum statutory sentence prescribed under the PMLA, without the framing of charges or any meaningful progress in trial. Such circumstances exemplify the principle that justice delayed can indeed amount to justice denied, particularly when an individual is subjected to prolonged deprivation of personal liberty without adjudication of guilt.

Notably, even at this advanced stage of incarceration, the Respondent continued to oppose the bail application, despite the clear absence of trial progress. The prosecution’s objections appeared misaligned with the realities of the case, given that over a decade has passed since the initiation of proceedings, more than 100 witnesses are yet to be examined, and the trial has not commenced.

This case once again highlights the vital role of the judiciary in upholding the principle that preventive detention cannot substitute for trial. Over the past year, the Constitutional Courts have increasingly expressed concern over indefinite undertrial incarceration, particularly under stringent laws like the PMLA, where procedural complexity often prolongs trial timelines. By harmonizing the rigours of statutory bail restrictions under s. 45 of the PMLA with the fundamental right to personal liberty under a. 21, the Court has reaffirmed that such restrictions must not be permitted to evolve into mechanisms of pre-trial punishment.

End Notes

[i] Bail Application No. 1337/2024.

[ii] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626.

[iii] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270.

Authored by Anshi Bhatia, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.