'You Pick & Choose Anyone As Accused?' : Supreme Court Questions Fairness Of ED/CBI Probe In Delhi Liquor Policy Case

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan categorically said that the prosecution has to be fair and cannot pick and choose anyone. The Court noted that the person who has incriminated himself has been made a witness. Taking note of the role played by the said witness, the Court expressed surprise that he was not made an accused and was instead a witness.

"Prosecution has to be fair. A person who incriminates himself has been made a witness! Tomorrow you pick up anyone as you please and leave anyone as you choose? You cannot pick and choose any accused. What is this fairness? Very fair and reasonable discretion!!," Justice Gavai said.

Kavitha has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment dated July 1, 2024, whereby her pleas for bail in the liquor policy cases (registered by CBI and ED) were dismissed. Notice was issued on the same on August 12, when Rohatgi informed that Kavitha has been in jail for 5 months and the chargesheet/prosecution complaint in both the ED and CBI cases have been filed.

The aforementioned remark came when the bench noted that Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, a South Indian liquor businessman, was not made an accused and his son, Raghav Magunta Reddy, was made an accused and then turned approver. Against this backdrop, Justice Gavai said “sorry to see these State of affairs. If he has a role, his role is almost equal to that of Kavitha. So you will pick and choose anyone?”

Pointing out that as per the ED/CBI allegations, Reddy's first meeting was Delhi Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, Justice Gavai said:

“The first meeting was with Kejriwal and Kejriwal tells that Kavitha is also interested so you coordinate with her. He is not made an accused. Everything has been finalised at his residence...has been made a witness. You will pick up and choose anyone? Very fair and reasonable discretion!!"

Adding to this, Justice Viswanathan said that Reddy had a status higher than an approver because he was a witness and his testament will be per se admissible. However, the substance showed that he is directly involved.

When Raju said that even as a witness he would have to be cross-examined, Justice Viswanathan replied that he would not have the stature of an accomplice.

During the proceedings, the Court took exception to the lengthy hearing in the present case, Justice Gavai told ASG “If you are going to argue bail matters like this then everyday we would take up one or two bail matters only.” He added that merely because parties are celebrities hours and hours of hearing cannot be permitted. However, Raju stressed that only the relevant documents have been shown in the Court.

Following this, the Court pointed out several crucial issues (including the above ones) to ASG. Justice Gavai also asked whether Buchi Babu (whose statement was also referred by ASG) was an accused.

To this, Raju replied that he is not an accused in the present case. He added that it is only when you have a role in money laundering that you are made an accused. Responding to this, Justice Gavai swiftly said that Babu has a role and according to ASG's submission, Babu is a conduit. The more you will argue, the more observations you will invite, Justice Gavai added.

During the hearing, ASG Raju referred to statements of certain individuals, including Raghav Magunta Reddy, and Bucchi Babu. The Court, however, said that these statements were relied upon in Kejriwal and he has been granted bail in the ED Case. So far as the CBI case is concerned, his bail plea is pending before another Bench.

Kavitha was arrested on the evening of March 15 by the ED and has been under custody since then. The CBI arrested her while she was in judicial custody in the ED case.

Today, the Court allowed her release on bail in both cases on furnishing sureties for Rs 10 lakhs each. The Court further directed her to deposit the passport and that she should not attempt to influence or intimidate the sureties.

Case Title : KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT | SLP(Crl) No. 10778/2024 & KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION |SLP(Crl) No. 10785/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order