New Delhi: Following her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in March and the Central Bureau of Investigation a month later in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam, which also names Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy, Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to K Kavitha, the leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi.
The Supreme Court noted a delay in the trial in Mr. Sisodia’s case and released him earlier this month, ruling that he could not be detained for a “unlimited time” because it would violate his fundamental rights. Ms. Kavitha is the second prominent opposition leader to be granted bail in this case. Mr. Sisodia was arrested in February of last year.
Additionally detained by both agencies, Mr. Kejriwal is still being held in jail; he was granted bail in the ED case but not in the CBI one yet. This month, the Supreme Court denied redress.
Even though the inquiry has been concluded, a two-judge bench made up of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan pointed out today that Ms. Kavitha, like Mr. Sisodia, had already served more than five months in jail and that “the trial is not expected soon.”
“We conclude that the investigation is over. Because of this, the appellant does not require custody; she is now serving a five-month jail sentence and, as was noted with Sisodia, there is no chance that she will be tried anytime soon.”
Referring to provisions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that “permit certain category of accused, including women, to be released on bail without (satisfying) twin requirements,” the court further noted that “the law provides special treatment for women while considering bail applications.”
In light of this, the Supreme Court vehemently disagreed with the Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Kavitha’s appeal, citing her education as justification. Despite claims that it is “normal practice” for women to be freed on bond, the High Court had ruled in July that Ms. Kavitha could not be granted bail because of her education and status as a former member of Parliament, which disqualified her from being considered a “vulnerable” woman.
The Supreme Court argued that the High Court had “totally misapplied” the pertinent provision of the legislation and that the courts should use judicial discretion when making decisions of this nature. The court cannot rule that a woman should not be granted bail just because she is an MLA or well educated.
(Then) every arrested woman will get bail… In vain, the prosecution contended.
Illegally Imprisoned
The BRS wrote on X shortly after the bail order was approved, stating that “She was unlawfully detained for 166 days… without presenting any proof.” In a politically driven case, justice was ultimately served.”
When bail was granted, BRS Working President KT Rama Rao, Ms. Kavitha’s brother, was present in court.
Bail Is ‘Normal Practice’ For Women
Senior barrister Mukul Rohatgi previously contended that women receiving bail is “normal practice.” She was named as the mother of two children in the plea, one of them is a minor who is in shock and receiving medical attention.
The ‘South group’ allegedly paid the AAP ₹ 100 crore for liquor licenses, and he pointed out that Ms. Kavitha had already been in jail for more than five months and that neither agency had been able to retrieve the money.
He emphasized, “She is an ex-MP and there is no chance she will flee from justice…the normal practice is that women do get bail,” to which the court reply, “(But) she is not a ‘vulnerable’ woman.”
The claim is that the ‘South’ lobby paid ₹ 100 crore, but there is no recovery. Although it is merely their word, they also claim that she intimidated a witness.” In response, Mr. Rohatgi said.
The prosecution then turned the debate to its allegations that Ms. Kavitha had reformatted her phone after erasing text messages, which they claimed were crucial pieces of evidence. Authorities charged her in June with reformatting at least one of her eight cell phones and wiping them all clean.
Ms. Kavitha has refuted this assertion, nevertheless. And today, Mr. Rohatgi criticized the “bogus” allegation made by the ED, saying, “How can you say I ‘destroyed’ my phone? People change phones.” I switched phones.”
However, the prosecution questioned Ms. Kavitha’s activities, countering, “Her conduct amounts to tampering (with evidence)… why would you give a maid or a servant an iPhone (authorities had earlier said the BRS leader gave one of the reformatted phones to her maid).”
The prosecution also questioned how there could be no texts on a phone that a high-ranking political figure had been using for at least four months. “On examination of the phone it is found there is no data (but) you have been using the phone for four to six months?”
However, the Supreme Court refused to be persuaded, pointing out that “people delete messages”. “I usually delete texts… that’s just my tendency. Justice Viswanathan stated, “Anyone in this room (does it),” to which the prosecution retorted, “You do not delete contacts, history…”
Conditions for Bail
Ms. Kavitha is subject to a number of orders from the Supreme Court, one of which is that she not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. She has also been instructed to give over her passport and pay bail bonds totaling ₹ 10 lakh, one for each of the ED and CBI investigations.
Leave a Reply