Read Time: 07 minutes
"This court puts a caution that while dealing with such matters, courts should exercise caution. Merely because a woman is educated, sophisticated or an MP, she should be denied the benefit of proviso to Section 45(1)....", the top court has said
The Supreme Court yesterday while granting relief to BRS leader K Kavitha has observed that a woman who is educated and accomplished cannot be denied the relief of bail under PMLA on that account.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan has added when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a category of accused, as does the PMLA for bail to be given to women, the same cannot be denied.
The top court called out the Delhi High Court on its verdict denying bail to K Kavitha wherein regarding Kavitha's plea for the benefit under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA based on her gender, the court reiterated that “...Smt. K. Kavitha cannot be equated to a vulnerable woman who may have been misused to commit an offence, which is the class of women for whom the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA has been incorporated”.
Despite Kavitha's notable qualifications and significant public service contributions, including her tenure in legislative bodies and social initiatives, the high court underscored the need to prioritize the gravity of the accusations and the evidence presented against her.
On these observations, Justice Gavai said, "the order of the learned single judge denying bail to Kavitha makes for an interesting reading. The single judge comes to a heartening conclusion, that she is an accomplished person and cannot be equated to a vulnerable woman. The single judge totally misapplied the ratio laid by this court in Soumya Chaurasia vs. ED..".
Yesterday, Supreme Court of India granted bail to the Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader and daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao in connection with the cases registered against her by Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation in the liquor policy scam.
The bench further observed that in view of proviso of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a woman was entitled to bail without the twin conditions requirement to be satisfied.
On August 12, the top court had issued notice on Kavitha's plea and sought the response of ED and CBI.
Court was told earlier that Kavitha was covered by the top court's decisions of granting bail to AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia.
In July, the Delhi High Court, had denied bail to Kavitha in the cases filed by the CBI and ED concerning the now-defunct liquor excise policy. “However, while deciding the present bail applications, though this Court may appreciate these accomplishments, it cannot lose sight of serious allegations levelled by the prosecution and the evidences collected during the course of investigation and presented before this Court, which prima facie reveal her role in the offence in question”, the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held.
Kavitha's plea for bail was dismissed by Rouse Avenue Court on May. She approached the trial court after the Supreme Court in March had denied her any relief after she was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate.
Notably, she was arrested by the ED on March 15 in Hyderabad. The genesis of the case against her and others implicated in the Delhi excise scandal traces back to 2022, with the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) by the CBI. This FIR contended that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was tampered with to facilitate the monopolization and cartelization of Delhi's wholesale and retail liquor trade. 6, prompting her to escalate the matter to the High Court.
Substantial kickbacks amounting to approximately Rs. 90-100 crores were allegedly paid to public servants, purportedly returned through inflated profit margins and credit notes in the South Indian liquor business.
Case Title: KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Please Login or Register
