In his petition, James had argued that his extradition from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) to India was a quid pro quo for Indian authorities sending back Dubai’s Princess Latifa.
Advocate Aljo Joseph, appearing for Michel, had submitted that Michel was brought to India in December 2018 just eight months after Princess Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum, the runaway daughter of Dubai’s ruler, was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guards near Goa while she was trying to flee to the US. India had then sent her back to the UAE.
He argued that Michel’s bail was rejected by the lower court on the ground that he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and had no roots in India but it cannot be a criteria for denial of bail.
The Court was also informed about the intervention of United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which termed his arrest illegal as it went against several international conventions that India is a signatory to.
Joseph submitted that Michel has only been charged with Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act where the maximum punishment is five years imprisonment. Therefore, he is now entitled to bail as per Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it was pointed out.
Joseph further said that the investigation in the AgustaWestland case has been going on for nearly eight years and there is no clarity when it will conclude.
Source: Barandbench
