The Delhi High Court is set to deliver its verdict on the bail requests submitted by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha on July 1, 2024, concerning her involvement in a case related to the Excise Policy, as per the investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court concluded the hearings and reserved the judgment on May 28, 2024, after listening to the arguments presented by all involved parties. Defending K Kavitha, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, alongside Advocate Nitesh Rana, led the legal representation. They were joined by Advocates Mohit Rao and Deepak Nagar in K Kavitha’s defence team. For the CBI, Advocate DP Singh took part, whereas Advocate Zoheb Hossain represented the Enforcement Directorate.
The CBI has expressed opposition to Kavitha’s bail, emphasizing that the investigation into certain critical aspects of the case, including the involvement of other officials and private individuals and the tracking of illicit funds, is at a pivotal juncture. They argue that granting bail might risk undermining the ongoing investigation, highlighting concerns that Kavitha doesn’t meet the stringent criteria for bail set by the courts in various precedents.
Similarly, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued against the bail plea, pointing out the specific challenges in investigating money laundering crimes. They stress that accused individuals can obfuscate financial trials using technology, complicating or even rendering the investigation and subsequent trial futile. Consequently, they argue that mere standard conditions to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial or safeguarding evidence are insufficient in such contexts.
Previously, upon receiving bail petitions from Kavitha, the Delhi High Court had issued notices to both the ED and CBI about the allegations of money laundering connected to Delhi’s now-abandoned Excise policy.
The ED, meanwhile, has escalated its actions by submitting an additional prosecution complaint (chargesheet) concerning the money laundering aspects of the Excise Policy case to the Rouse Avenue Court, naming K Kavitha and others, including Chanpreet Singh, Damodar, Prince Singh, and Arvind Kumar as accused.
In her bail pleas, K Kavitha, a mother of two with one minor child currently under medical care, contended that political adversaries had exaggerated her involvement in the scandal. She asserts that the ED’s case heavily relies on statements from an approver, witnesses, or co-accused, as per Section 50 of the PMLA, without providing concrete evidence to substantiate these claims. Hence, she considers her arrest baseless and inconsistent with the mandated legal procedures, specifically citing a lack of adherence to Section 19 of the PMLA.
On May 6, K Kavitha’s request for bail was rejected by The Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi concerning the CBI and ED cases about the Excise Policy case.
K Kavitha was taken into custody by the ED on March 15, 2024, followed by a subsequent arrest by the CBI on April 11, 2024. The CBI had stated the necessity of her custody for direct interrogation to unravel the broader conspiracy regarding the formulation and implementation of the Excise Policy, examine the flow of illicit gains, and bring to light aspects known uniquely to her.
The allegations involve irregularities in modifying the Excise Policy, inappropriate advantages provided to licensees, unauthorized concessions on license fees, and unwarranted extensions of the L-1 license without due approval. The investigative bodies have claimed that these actions allowed illegal profits to be channelled to involved officials, with attempts to obscure such transactions through manipulative bookkeeping practices.
The Excise Department also improperly sanctioned a refund of roughly Rs 30 crore in earnest money to a successful bidder, bypassing standard regulations. Additionally, a suspension of license fees, justified by citing the COVID-19 pandemic, was allowed from December 28, 2021, to January 27, 2022, despite no formal provision for such an exemption.