The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the appeal filed by Christian Michel James — the alleged middleman in the ₹3,600-crore AgustaWestland money-laundering case — challenging a Delhi High Court direction that he deposit his passport and divulge his local address in India as a pre-condition for his release on bail.

James had challenged the May 22 order of Delhi High Court, which, based on an earlier February 18 order of the Supreme Court granting him bail, imposed several conditions for his release.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar orally told the counsel appearing for James that he must fulfil the bail conditions imposed by the high court, otherwise, he would continue to remain in Tihar jail.

The counsel for James submitted that it was difficult to comply with the conditions imposed by the trial court and Delhi High Court, particularly the disclosure of his local address and the surrender of his passport.

The counsel submitted that James was a native of the UK and had no local contacts. His wife had divorced him during his incarceration.

“You have a permanent address in Tihar jail, then you stay there! We had granted you bail, but you don’t want to fulfil a condition of providing a local address,” the bench observed while dismissing his plea.

On February 18, the Supreme Court had granted bail to James, saying he had been in jail for over six years and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

The apex court had, however, said the CBI was free to seek cancellation of his bail in case James failed to cooperate with the speedy conclusion of the trial.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta had questioned the CBI as to what purpose it would serve by keeping James in jail when the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

“This is the worst kind of incarceration where the CBI is still not ready with the final chargesheet and the accused has been in jail for six years. Why do you want him in custody after six years?” the bench had asked the counsel appearing for the CBI, adding: “You will not be able to conclude the trial in another 25 years”.