In a major development over the high-profile case related to alleged irregularities in the excise policy, the Supreme Court of India granted bail on Tuesday to K Kavitha foremost leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, BRS party. This is a very important development as the Central Bureau of Investigation. And the Enforcement Directorate continue their investigations into this case.
While K Kavitha had already spent almost five months in custody, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ordered her release with immediate effect. The court has imposed several strict conditions regarding the investigations underway. The chief among them all is not to hamper the investigation or witness influence. Besides this, Kavitha has to provide bail bonds of Rs 10 lakh in both the cases of CBI and ED. She will also have to surrender her passport to the court to ensure she does not fly away.
The Supreme Court granting bail reflects the time-consuming nature of the trial. The number of witnesses in the case is substantial. There is also a large volume of documents to review. The court noted that the trial will be lengthy due to these factors. The case heavily relies on the statements of co-accused individuals. They have turned approvers in the case.
The Supreme Court also noted that investigating agencies shall conduct a probe with fairness and cannot pick or choose individuals. The observation refers to the principle of equal treatment under the law, which emphasizes that no individual should be singled out in such regard during an investigation.
K Kavitha’s bail was argued by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. Later, Rohatgi argued for parity since the co-accused Sisodia had already been granted bail. He emphasized to the court that Kavitha’s status as a woman and a sitting MLC suggests she is unlikely to evade the law. Justice BR Gavai, smiling, acknowledged this perspective. He noted that becoming an MLA or MLC involves a heightened awareness of right and wrong. Thus, Kavitha’s political position contributes to her credibility.
Rohatgi further argued on the allegations about the alleged evidence destruction. He said that the allegations about Kavitha changing her phones were unsubstantiated as even other people change cars. Rohatgi further submitted that Kavitha, being the daughter of a former CM, had to be shown some respect and trust. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju responded that Kavitha had formatted her phone after which the agencies considered it to be an act of tempering with the evidence. Further, the agencies submitted CDRs to show the commission’s connections with other accused persons.
The legal battle has been long drawn-for Kavitha. On July 1, 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed her bail pleas in CBI and ED cases about excise policy. The High Court dismissing the petitions from Kavitha had kept high vigil and speculation on the Supreme Court judgment.
The CBI and ED allege several issues in the excise policy. These include improper amendments to the policy. They also cite undue benefits given to license holders. There are claims of waiving or reducing license fees. The extension of the L-1 license without proper approvals is another concern. These allegations stem from a report filed by the Chief Secretary of Delhi in July. The report highlights prima facie violations. It points to breaches of the GNCTD Act of 1991, the Transaction of Business Rules (ToBR) of 1993, the Delhi Excise Act of 2009, and the Delhi Excise Rules of 2010.
The arrest of K Kavitha by the Directorate of Enforcement on March 15, 2024. K Kavitha’s subsequent arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation on April 11, 2024, marked a dramatic turn in the unfolding excise policy case. This development intensified the ongoing drama surrounding the case. The investigation has attracted significant public attention. Its aftermath has raised concerns about potential repercussions for the political scenario and the regulatory framework for excise policy in Delhi.
The recent grant of bail to Kavitha by the Supreme Court promises to have wide ramifications for this ongoing case. And may well set in motion a critical change in both public and political sensibility on questions of legal fairness and the administration of justice.
ANI
