Concession Of Bail To Women Under PMLA Not Applicable To Leading Politicians Like K Kavitha: ED Opposes Interim Bail, Delhi Court Reserves Order

A Delhi Court on Thursday reserved order on the interim bail plea moved by BRS leader K Kavitha who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case connected with the alleged liquor policy scam.

Special CBI judge Kaveri Baweja will pronounce the order on Monday.

Kavitha was remanded to judicial custody till April 09 on March 26. She was arrested on the evening of March 15 by the ED hours after the agency and the Income Tax department conducted searches at her Hyderabad residence.

Kavitha was then remanded to ED custody till March 23 which was extended to further three days.

Appearing for Kavitha, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted the court is not “straight-jacketed” by the twin conditions for grant of bail under PMLA and is free to exercise discretion to grant the relief.

Referring to Section 45 of PMLA and various judgments on the subject, Singhvi said: “The basic principle of woman, rationale of legislature and discretion, all these things are preserved.”

According to Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if twin conditions are satisfied - there should be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The provision states that a woman (and other categories so mentioned) may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs.

Singhvi prayed that Kavitha should be released on interim bail to be with her 16 years old son whose exams are commencing from the next month. 

“It's not that the child is in arms or is a toddler. He is 16 years old. But the issue is slightly different. It's the moral and emotional support of the mother. There is trauma and shock about what has happened and two, there is silence,” Singhvi said.

He added that the perspective of a mother is not substitutable by the father or sister or brother or even “maasi.” 

“Let's take an hypothetical example, that your lordships allow her to be with the son for the month. How would heavens fall? Where will the ED go? Where would the accused go. No immediate interrogation is there which can't wait these few weeks,” he said.

Opposing the interim bail, special counsel Zoheb Hossain representing ED submitted that “woman” under the proviso of Section 45 of PMLA cover those women who do not have agency and not the ones who are "leading politicians in the State.”

“The accused in question is one of the prime movers of giving bribes. She is not only part of arranging kickbacks in advance but also beneficiary through indo spirits. I am not relying on statements alone. I've material, WhatsApp documents etc. There is direct proceed of crimes through bank accounts, where she is a beneficiary,” Zoheb said.

He added that Kavitha was involved in destruction of evidence as she deleted contents and formatted her mobile phones before handing them over to ED.

“When confronted, Kavitha evaded questions. On March 11, she said I'll produce when we asked her to produce remaining phones. One the next day she presents 9 phones. On preliminary examination, it was found that the phones were formatted and had no data,” Zoheb said.

He added: “She says I'll furnish the devices and documents on March 16. Between 11 and 16, on 14th and 15th the forensic report suggests that she formatted and deleted. Four phones completely wiped out after offering to provide the phones. Huge amount, more than 100 of devices wiped out and formatted by the accused persons. This is an instance of destruction of evidence. Our investigation is ongoing. We are on the verge of making crucial breakthroughs and any kind of interim relier at this stage will hamper our investigation. I've not yet touched on her role.”

Furthermore, Zoheb said that there are witnesses who have been forced or coerced by Kavitha to retract their statement. He said that the behest of Kavitha, there was an attempt to make one of the main witnesses, her CA (Arun Pillai) to retract his statement.

“The timing of retraction is of utmost importance in this case. The summons was issued to Kavitha on March 7 which promoted Pillai to file application on March 9. The moment the master finds out that something is told by her proxy or someone she controls, she influences and he retracts the statement after 118 days…because madam has been called for interrogation,” Zoheb said.

He added: “Today, I want to highlight there is influencing of witness, there is an attempt to make atleast two or three witnesses to retract statements. Out of which one or two people she has already succeeded. Third person came forward to us and said that she pressure is exerted on him. There is an apparent destruction of evidence.”

Zoheb said that Kavitha has a close knit family and that her three sisters are available for emotional support of her son.

”It's not as if the young person will be bereft of any kind of attention. It this kind of application is allowed, the rigours will be thrown out of window. The exam anxiety referred to may be general phenomena but there is no evidence to show that the young person suffers from it. It's not a casual problem, its a notified disorder. Not a single medical document to demonstrate examination anxiety to the young person,” he said.

Also Read: ED Acting Like Persecuting Agency, A Summons A Day Keeps It Happy: K Kavitha To Delhi Court

As per the arrest memo, Kavitha, daughter of former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao and a Telangana Legislative Council member, was arrested by the central probe agency at 5:20 pm from her residence at Banjara Hills in Hyderabad.

On March 19, Kavitha withdrew from the Supreme Court her plea challenging the ED summons. Thereafter, the Apex Court issued notice on her plea challenging her arrest and asked the BRS leader to approach the trial court for bail.

In the earlier remand application, ED alleged that Kavitha is “one of the kingpins, a key conspirator and beneficiary” of the excise policy scam.

The agency alleged that Kavitha along with other members of the South Group namely Sarath Reddy, Raghav Magunta and Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, conspired with top Aam Aadmi Party leaders and gave them kickbacks to the tune of Rs. 100 Crore and in exchange, got undue favours in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy.

ED had also alleged that Kavitha orchestrated a deal with the Delhi Chief Minister and then Deputy Chief Minister, wherein she along with other members of the South Group paid them kickbacks through a string of intermediaries and middlemen.

In this case, the anti-money laundering agency has issued summons to K Kavitha as a part of its wider probe into the alleged financial irregularities surrounding the now-scrapped liquor policy and the role of a purported 'south liquor lobby'.

In March 2023, the ED summoned her to appear in person in Delhi for questioning. In the same month, the central agency's summons were challenged by the BRS leader.