Read Time: 10 minutes
The court emphasized, “The Courts should be sensitive and sympathetic to the vulnerable groups such as women, it must also recognize that educated and well-placed women may engage themselves in illegal activities. Therefore, courts are required to exercise their discretion judiciously, considering factors such as the extent of involvement and evidence against the accused when applying this proviso”.
The Delhi High Court, on Monday, denied bail to K. Kavitha in connection with the money laundering case linked to the now-defunct liquor excise policy. The court found prima facie evidence of her participation. While recognizing K. Kavitha's accomplishments, the court weighed the gravity of the accusations and the evidence compiled during the investigation presented to the court.
“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.
The case stemmed from a case initiated by the CBI against K. Kavitha and others, alleging they conspired to introduce loopholes into Delhi's Excise Policy for 2021-22. 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.
The ED, represented by Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh and Additional Special Prosecutors Manu Mishra, Shreya Dutt, and Imaan Khera, alleged that senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party designed the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 to siphon illicit funds.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, representing K. Kavitha, argued that despite being initially treated as a witness, she was issued a notice but was never formally charged as an accused until February 20, 2024. Senior Advocate Chaudhri contended that her arrest in April 2024, just before the Lok Sabha Elections, raised questions about the timing.
In the judicial review of K. Kavitha's case, the court closely examined evidence implicating her in alleged illegal activities. The investigation revealed that Magunta S. Reddy, a South Indian liquor businessman, met Kejriwal, in March 2023 to seek support under the upcoming Excise Policy. Reddy claimed Kejriwal mentioned a previous meeting with Kavitha, where she allegedly offered Rs. 100 crores to the Aam Aadmi Party to support her liquor business in Delhi. Kavitha then reportedly solicited Rs. 50 crores from Reddy for business collaboration, with Rs. 25 crores paid to her associates, leading to Reddy's son gaining a stake in M/s Indo Spirits. Approver Dinesh Arora confirmed substantial monetary transactions, including Rs. 90-100 crores to Vijay Nair and Rs. 30 crores to AAP's Goa campaign. Digital evidence further indicated Kavitha's involvement in M/s Indo Spirits and policy amendments. The court concluded Kavitha was a key conspirator in the criminal activities related to the Excise Policy, involving money laundering and kickbacks.
In light of these findings, the court framed a pivotal issue: 'Whether statements from approvers and witnesses, crucial for establishing the case against Kavitha, should be disregarded at the bail stage'. Senior Advocate Chaudhri argued against relying on these statements, asserting that without them, there would be insufficient incriminating evidence to justify denying bail. The court, however, dismissed this contention, emphasizing “As per the existing law, the Courts have to rely upon the statements of the witnesses etc. as mentioned above for the purpose of making out a prima facie view regarding involvement of an accused and the extent thereof for the purpose of exercising discretion to grant or deny bail”.
The court further stressed that the evidentiary weight of these statements would be rigorously tested during trial proceedings, while at the pre-trial stage, they formed the foundational basis for bail decisions.
Furthermore, the court deliberated on whether Kavitha should be granted bail at this juncture. Section 45 of the PMLA sets forth stringent conditions for bail, mandating both a lack of prima facie guilt and confidence in the accused's non-repetition of offences while on bail. Despite Kavitha's notable qualifications and significant public service contributions, including her tenure in legislative bodies and social initiatives, the court underscored the need to prioritize the gravity of the accusations and the evidence presented against her.
Regarding Kavitha's plea for the benefit under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA based on her gender, the court reiterated that “Thus, 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”, the court observed. Despite recognizing her achievements and social contributions, the court emphasized that the proviso cannot shield individuals accused of serious criminal offences, reflecting its commitment to upholding legal integrity and fairness in adjudication.
The court also scrutinized Kavitha's conduct during the investigation, noting concerns over the deletion of data from mobile phones following a summons, which raised suspicions of potential evidence tampering. Given her influential status and the potential to influence witnesses, the court determined that stringent adherence to legal standards was imperative. Consequently, with chargesheets pending and the formal framing of charges yet to occur, the court denied Kavitha's bail application, emphasizing the complexity and severity of the allegations.
Case Title: K Kavitha v CBI
Please Login or Register
