The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to grant bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader Kalvakuntla Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal saga surrounding the controversial policy. Kavitha, who was embroiled in the alleged corruption and money laundering case, had been under judicial custody for several months. The apex court’s ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, highlighted several key factors that influenced the decision to release her on bail. This development follows a series of high-profile cases, including those involving Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia, where similar judicial considerations were made. Here are 10 critical reasons why the Supreme Court granted bail to K Kavitha:
1. Completion of investigation: The investigation had concluded and both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed their chargesheets. The apex court noted that Kavitha’s continued custody was no longer necessary for the investigation.
2. Long trial process: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial would be lengthy with nearly 493 witnesses and around 50,000 pages of documentary evidence. The apex court emphasised that undertrial custody should not become a form of punishment.
3. Special consideration for women: The Supreme Court applied the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which entitles women to special consideration in bail matters. The Supreme Court criticised the Delhi High Court’s reasoning that Kavitha’s education and status disqualified her from this benefit.
4. Five months in custody: Kavitha had already spent over five months in custody. The apex court considered this sufficient time in relation to the completion of the investigation and the fact that the chargesheets were already filed.
5. No recovery of evidence: Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that no incriminating evidence had been recovered from Kavitha, which supported the argument for granting bail.
6. Questionable interpretation by lower court: The Supreme Court found the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the PMLA proviso flawed, particularly in its assertion that an educated or sophisticated woman should be treated differently in bail considerations.
7. Prosecution’s selective approach: The Supreme Court questioned the fairness of the prosecution, particularly its approach in treating certain accused as approvers while opposing bail for others like Kavitha.
8. No flight risk: The apex court considered Kavitha’s status as an ex-Member of Parliament and a current Member of the Legislative Council, noting that she posed no flight risk and was unlikely to abscond.
9. Contradictory statements by co-accused: The Supreme Court found the statements of co-accused, who later turned approvers, insufficient to deny bail to Kavitha, especially given the lack of independent corroborative evidence.
10. Human conduct and privacy: The apex court was unconvinced by the prosecution’s argument that Kavitha’s phone formatting amounted to tampering with evidence, highlighting that such actions are common for privacy reasons and do not necessarily indicate guilt.
