The Delhi High Court after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicant’s prolonged incarceration, who is a British National his status as a foreign national with no roots in India, and his inability to arrange for a surety locally, modified the bail condition imposed earlier.
The single bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered that Instead of the requirement to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of ₹5,00,000/- each – the applicant shall now furnish a personal bond of ₹5,00,000/- along with a cash surety in the enhanced sum of ₹10,00,000/-.
By way of the application, the applicant who is a British National sought modification of order passed by the Court in the captioned bail application, vide which the applicant was granted regular bail in case recorded for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the first condition i.e. requiring the applicant to furnish, alongwith his personal bond – a surety – be modified or waived since the applicant, who is a foreign national, has no person, family or friend in India who would stand surety for him. Thus, given his lack of personal ties to the country, it is impossible for him to provide a surety from India.
“Having considered the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Trial Court, and the fact that it would take some time for a fresh passport being issued to the applicant by the HMPO/British High Commission, the bail condition imposed by this Court, in order dated 04.03.2025, stands modified, to the extent that applicant may be released on regular bail, without him depositing his passport immediately; however, the FRRO shall ensure that the applicant does not leave the country, and the British High Commission (or the concerned authority issuing the applicant’s passport) shall ensure that the applicant’s fresh passport, whenever the same is ready, is not handed over to the applicant, but directly deposited with the learned Trial Court under intimation to this Court”, the court observed.
The court further observed that the applicant has remained in custody in India for a period of about 6 years and 5 months. Even if the applicant was to be convicted for the alleged offence, the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years of imprisonment. Thus, the applicant has already undergone a substantial portion of the maximum sentence that could be imposed, without the trial having even commenced. The continued curtailment of his liberty, particularly through the condition such as the furnishing of a surety bond – which he is unable to furnish due to his foreign nationality and lack of social ties in India. – would not serve the ends of justice.
The court said that the principle that bail conditions must not be excessive or punitive in nature applies with greater force in cases where the undertrial has already spent a period in custody nearly equivalent to the potential maximum sentence. In these circumstances, the imposition of rigid conditions, without due regard to the applicant‟s peculiar situation, would amount to an unjust deprivation of liberty.
The court directed that the condition that the applicant shall deposit his passport with the learned Trial Court which shall not be released without the permission of the Court, shall be strictly adhered to. The applicant shall strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court, including marking his attendance physically in the office of DoE/concerned I.O. once every 15 days after his release.
Case Details
Case Title: Christian James Michel V/S Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: CRL.M.A. 8942/2025
Counsel for the Applicant: Aljo K. Joseph, Vishnu Shankar, Sriram P, Sheikh Mohsin
Counsel for the Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED with Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi and Kanishk Maurya
Read More: Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 18 To 24 May 2025
