'Attempts to poison me in jail': Agustawestland 'middleman' Christian Michel James to court
New Delhi, Apr 3 (PTI): A Delhi court on Thursday sought a response from Tihar Jail authorities on a plea of Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman in the Agustawestland case, claiming attempts were made to poison him inside the prison.
Special judge Sanjeev Aggarwal sought a status report form the DG (prisons), Tihar Jail on the application filed by James over the "specific serious allegations".
The judge directed the official to file the report by April 16, 2025 detailing the action taken after James levelled the allegations.
The judge further directed the jail superintendent concerned to "positively" take James to the orthopedic department, AIIMS on April 7 after her complained of pain post his surgery on February 11, 2025.
James, a British national, was extradited on December 4, 2018 from Dubai, where he spent four months in custody.
Probe agencies had reported irregularities in the purchase of 12 VVIP helicopters from Italian manufacturing company AgustaWestland.
James, on March 7, offered to "finish his sentence" and leave India instead of walking out on bail owing to "security risks".
Following the reprieve in the CBI and ED cases against him, the special court imposed the necessary bail conditions for releasing him on bail.
While the Delhi High Court on March 4 granted him bail in the ED case and directed for saddling James with the necessary bail riders, the Supreme Court on February 18 granted the relief in the CBI case subject to the trial court's conditions.
A trial court judge on March 7 asked James, "How are you now? God has been kind to you in the last two months. You have got bail in both cases."
He said, "Delhi is just a larger prison. My family cannot come to me...My security is at risk. I would rather complete my sentence and leave the country."
The judge asked James how could he continue to be incarcerated when he was granted bail.
"I cannot accept the bail. It's unsafe. Every time I step out of Tihar (prison), something happens," he said.
On the aspect of furnishing a surety bond, he said, "How can a person who has been in jail for six years produce local sureties?"
After he stressed he did not want to be released on bail because of security reasons, the judge asked, "Can't you find a safehouse in Delhi?"
James then offered to "narrate in private the incident" he faced when he was admitted to AIIMS.
"The problem I have is with the police. I would rather talk to you in private," he said.
The judge then asked the media persons and the police personnel to wait outside for some time.
The court later passed its order, laying down the conditions for bail.
The conditions included James marking his attendance physically before the investigating officers once every 15 days, providing his cellphone number, email and residential address to the probe agencies aside from not leaving the country without the court's permission and not tampering with the evidence or attempting to influence the witnesses.
"The accused shall not interact with respect to the present case with the media nor shall communicate regarding this case at any forum, during the trial of this case, the order said.
The court directed James to furnish a personal bond and surety of Rs 10 lakh in both cases and surrender his passport.
James is among the three alleged middlemen being probed in the case and the other two are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.
The CBI, in its chargesheet, claimed an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros.
The ED chargesheet filed against James in June 2016 alleged he received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
