A Delhi court Today (April 4th) reserved its order on the interim bail plea of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy scam. Special Judge (PC Act) Kaveri Baweja from the Rouse Avenue Courts reserved verdict following arguments presented by Kavitha and ED.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Rouse Avenue court today reserved its order in the interim bail plea filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the money laundering case against her in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam.
Special Judge (PC Act) Kaveri Baweja reserved her verdict after hearing Kavitha and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kavitha, contended that she should be granted bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Singhvi highlighted that the proviso allows the court discretion to grant bail to female accused, irrespective of the stringent bail conditions typically required under the PMLA.
“The first point flows from Section 45 PMLA itself. It has so-called twin conditions… I am interested in proviso. It says woman. My point is that of course your lordship is not obliged to give me bail. But equally your lordship is not hidebound or straitjacketed by the twin conditions,”
-Singhvi argued.
He emphasized that the legislative intent was to establish a separate regime for women, which should be interpreted and applied accordingly.
Additionally, Singhvi pointed out the necessity of Kavitha’s presence for her son, who is currently taking exams.
In opposition, Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued against bail on both grounds. He asserted that the exception for women under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA is intended for those lacking agency, not for prominent public figures like Kavitha.
Regarding Kavitha’s son’s exams, it was noted that the majority of his exams have already concluded, and he has familial support from his father and brother.
The Court reserved its verdict and announced that it would be delivered on April 8, Monday.
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Singhvi, representing Kavitha, emphasized the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which grants the court the authority to grant bail to female accused individuals, notwithstanding the stringent bail conditions typically imposed under the PMLA.
Singhvi also stressed the emotional support required by Kavitha’s son, who is currently undergoing exams.
“The child is not a toddler. He is 16 years old, but the issue here is of emotional support from the mother. Think of the shock of the arrest of the mother on the child,”
-Singhvi stated.
He referenced Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s speeches regarding the pressure faced by children during exams, highlighting the irreplaceable perspective of a mother.
“The Prime Minister gives lectures on exam pressure on All India Radio… This pressure is not an imaginary phenomenon. The perspective of the mother is not substitutable by the father or sister. It is not substitutable by a maasi also,”
-he emphasized.
Singhvi also noted that Kavitha’s husband is already involved in legal battles in Delhi, underscoring the unique support system provided by a mother.
In the courtroom, Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), delineated that the exception outlined for women under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is intended for individuals lacking agency.
“It is not for a woman who is in public life and leading politician of the state,”
–he emphasized.
Hossain further underscored Kavitha’s pivotal role in the case, alleging her involvement as a key participant in providing bribes.
“The lady in question is one of the prime movers of giving bribes. She is also a beneficiary through her proxies. This is not based only on statements but based on documents and WhatsApp chats. This is all corroborated,”
-he asserted.
Additionally, Hossain accused Kavitha of tampering with evidence, including erasing data from her mobile phone.
“My lady will have to decide the extent of her involvement and the material against her. I have a forensic report which shows how evidence was destroyed. She deleted evidence on her mobile phone. This was done on the date she was issued summons…The forensic report shows they were formatted after March 11,”
-he argued.
Moreover, Hossain claimed that the ED is on the brink of a significant breakthrough in the investigation and cautioned that granting interim bail to Kavitha could disrupt the progress of the probe.
“We are at the stage of making a major breakthrough. Any interim relief will derail the probe. She is very influential and will influence the people,”
–he contended.
Furthermore, Hossain alleged attempts by the accused to influence witnesses and highlighted instances of evidence destruction.
“We want to highlight that there is influencing of witnesses. Attempt is to make witnesses retract the statement. A person has come forward and told us he was forced. There is destruction of evidence as well,”
–he asserted.
Addressing Kavitha’s son’s ongoing exams, Hossain noted,
“Her son’s 7 out of 12 papers are already over. He is not alone. He has a father and an elder brother. The young man is not alone.”
Responding to Singhvi’s interjection regarding the boy’s age, Hossain emphasized the supportive role of extended family members within Indian households.
“In the Indian family, maasi is part of a close-knit family and she can provide support,”
-he continued.
Hossain concluded by stating that there was no evidence indicating the young person suffered from anxiety disorders and dismissed such assertions as unsubstantiated generalizations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on K Kavitha
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
