On Monday(5th August),A Delhi court dismissed BRS Leader K. Kavitha’s default bail petition in the Delhi Excise Policy CBI case after her counsel withdrew the plea. The special judge, Kaveri Baweja, ruled the petition as withdrawn.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: On Monday(5th August), a Delhi court dismissed the default bail petition of BRS Leader K. Kavitha . K. Kavitha had sought default bail in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy CBI case. The special judge of the Rouse Avenue court, Kaveri Baweja, dismissed the bail plea as withdrawn, following a request from K. Kavitha’s counsel.
The court’s decision to dismiss the bail application came after K. Kavitha’s counsel submitted-
“He prefers not to pursue the bail application and requests that it be allowed to be withdrawn.”
This move indicates a strategic shift in the legal approach of K. Kavitha, who had earlier sought default bail on the grounds that the CBI failed to file a complete charge sheet within the mandatory period of 60 days.
K. Kavitha had also submitted that she should be granted default bail and interim bail during the pendency of the present bail application. However, her previous regular bail applications had been dismissed by both the trial court and the high court.
ALSO READ: “‘Powerful People’ Pressuring Witnesses to Withdraw Statements”: ED in K. Kavitha Hearing
K. Kavitha’s legal troubles began with her arrest by the CBI on April 11 in the Delhi Excise Policy case, followed by an earlier arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 15. The CBI filed a charge sheet against her on June 6, which the court has since taken cognizance of.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea
In related news, the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concerning the Excise Policy matter. The Delhi High Court stated that-
“It cannot be claimed that the arrest of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was unjustified.”
Regarding the bail application, the court has disposed of it, granting Kejriwal the option to approach the trial court for further relief. Kejriwal’s legal team had earlier urged the court to expedite the decision on his petitions. The same bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna had reserved its order on Arvind Kejriwal’s regular bail plea in the CBI case related to the Excise Policy on July 29, 2024. Additionally, on July 17, 2024, the court reserved its order on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in the same case.
During the hearing, the Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the bail plea, referring to Kejriwal as the “sutradhar” of the case. CBI’s Special Counsel, DP Singh, informed the Delhi High Court that their investigation had uncovered more evidence implicating Arvind Kejriwal. The chargesheet filed by the CBI named six individuals, including Kejriwal, although five of them had not been arrested.
The CBI highlighted that they had completed their investigation and filed a chargesheet within a month, claiming that Arvind Kejriwal was the central figure or “sutradhar” in the excise policy scam. According to the CBI counsel, Arvind Kejriwal, as the head of the cabinet, signed the excise policy, circulated it to his colleagues, and received their signatures within a single day during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Further, the CBI counsel submitted that C. Aravind, an IAS officer under Manish Sisodia, testified that Vijay Nair brought a copy of the excise policy to be entered into the computer, with Arvind Kejriwal present at that time. This, according to the CBI, indicates Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the matter. CBI counsel DP Singh stated-
“The investigation agency has tracked Rs 44 crores associated with the case, which was transferred to Goa.”
He further added-
“Arvind Kejriwal directed his candidates to concentrate on contesting the elections and not to be concerned about the funds.”
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has presented compelling arguments suggesting significant evidence against him. During recent court proceedings, CBI counsel DP Singh articulated the prosecution’s position, emphasizing that while direct evidence may be lacking, witness testimonies and statements strongly point to Kejriwal’s involvement.
DP Singh argued that despite the absence of direct evidence, the case is substantiated by the testimonies of three witnesses and 164 statements made in court. Singh contended that these pieces of evidence emerged only after Kejriwal’s arrest, highlighting that the Punjab officers might not have come forward with such information otherwise. Singh stated-
“Although direct evidence may be absent, witness testimonies, comprising three witnesses and 164 statements presented in court, strongly suggest Kejriwal’s involvement.”
Further elaborating, Singh revealed that following the media uproar, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal sought “ex post facto approval from the council of ministers” in response to the allegations. This, Singh implied, was indicative of the political and legal complexities surrounding the case.
The CBI also emphasized its procedural stance regarding bail applications. According to the agency, while certain circumstances permit the High Court to hear bail applications directly, it cannot be the primary court for such hearings. Singh noted-
“With the final chargesheet now submitted, the CBI is ready for the trial to begin.”
On the defense side, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, began his submissions by contesting the legitimacy of the arrest. Singhvi labeled the case an “insurance arrest,” suggesting that it was a precautionary measure rather than a response to substantial new evidence. Singhvi pointed out that Kejriwal had already been granted bail thrice in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, arguing that the current circumstances had not introduced any new confrontations or developments.
Singhvi further argued that the distinction between bail and writ petitions does not influence the merit of the case. He emphasized that the policy under scrutiny was the product of extensive deliberation, involving nine inter-ministerial committees and officials from various departments. This policy, published in July 2021 after a year of debate, was integral to understanding the context of the legal challenges faced by Kejriwal.
In his plea to the Delhi High Court, Singhvi highlighted that Kejriwal, as the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party and the Chief Minister of Delhi, was being subjected to undue persecution and harassment.
Singhvi noted-
“The applicant, Kejriwal, is the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party and the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi. He claims to be facing severe persecution and harassment for entirely malicious and extraneous reasons and is seeking regular bail from this Court.”
