NEW DELHI: A city court Monday denied interim bail to BRS’s K Kavitha in Delhi excise policy case, saying she was “prima facie actively involved” in alleged money laundering, destruction of evidence and attempting to influence witnesses. Kavitha can’t be said to be a “vulnerable” woman who has been made a scapegoat, court said.
‘Kavitha may influence witnesses if given bail’
From the material placed before this court, it appears that the applicant not only engaged in destruction of material evidence by formatting her phones before joining the investigation and after being served with notice requiring her to do so, along with her digital devices, which stands established by way of the forensic report in this regard, but also has been instrumental in influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of her continuing to do so in case the relief prayed for is granted to her,” said the court of special judge Kaveri Baweja.
Mentioning the educational background, her social life, achievements and credentials, the court said the BRS MLC is undoubtedly a “well-educated” and “well-placed woman in the society”.
“The material placed before this court in the course of arguments prima facie points towards her active involvement in commission of the alleged offences as also towards her deliberate act of causing destruction of evidence, besides attempting to influence witnesses of the case. Hence, the Applicant cannot be held entitled to the exercise of discretion in her favour by virtue of her being a woman in the light of the beneficial proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act,” the court concluded.
The court had reserved the order on April 4 after hearing ED and Kavitha at length. Kavitha was arrested on March 15 from Hyderabad, hours after an ED team searched the premises and interrogated her. She is currently in judicial custody in Tihar Jail.
The agency stating that the investigation is at a “very crucial stage” and in case relief as prayed for is granted to her, it would greatly hamper the investigation submitted that she fails to satisfy the conditions of the ‘Triple Test’ for grant of bail.
ED submitted that Arun Pillai, who was a proxy of Kavitha, retracted from his statements earlier made by him during investigation, after 118 days and the only two statements which he retracted from, pertained to the BRS leader.
Kavitha’s counsels seeking the interim bail had told the court that she, as a woman, is seeking bail as she falls within the first proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA and the rigours of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA will have no application on her.
The court rejecting the arguments of the counsels for Kavitha that her case falls within the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act, she being a woman said this court is of the humble opinion that the applicant clearly does not satisfy the ‘Triple Test’ for the grant of relief claimed.
Commenting on the aspect of examinations of her 16-year-old child the court noting that the child has an older sibling, father and maternal aunts (Mausis) and there is no apparent reason as to why these close relatives cannot provide the requisite moral support to the child during his examinations said, “The argument that they cannot be a substitute for the mother to address the exam related anxiety of the child is not a “compelling” reason to grant interim Bail, in the opinion of this court.”
Mentioning the Saumya Chaurasia verdict cited by the counsels for Kavitha urging to give interim bail, the court underlined that the Supreme Court in this judgment has said that Proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act cannot be construed as obligatory and mandatory in nature.
‘Kavitha may influence witnesses if given bail’
From the material placed before this court, it appears that the applicant not only engaged in destruction of material evidence by formatting her phones before joining the investigation and after being served with notice requiring her to do so, along with her digital devices, which stands established by way of the forensic report in this regard, but also has been instrumental in influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of her continuing to do so in case the relief prayed for is granted to her,” said the court of special judge Kaveri Baweja.
Mentioning the educational background, her social life, achievements and credentials, the court said the BRS MLC is undoubtedly a “well-educated” and “well-placed woman in the society”.
“The material placed before this court in the course of arguments prima facie points towards her active involvement in commission of the alleged offences as also towards her deliberate act of causing destruction of evidence, besides attempting to influence witnesses of the case. Hence, the Applicant cannot be held entitled to the exercise of discretion in her favour by virtue of her being a woman in the light of the beneficial proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act,” the court concluded.
The court had reserved the order on April 4 after hearing ED and Kavitha at length. Kavitha was arrested on March 15 from Hyderabad, hours after an ED team searched the premises and interrogated her. She is currently in judicial custody in Tihar Jail.
The agency stating that the investigation is at a “very crucial stage” and in case relief as prayed for is granted to her, it would greatly hamper the investigation submitted that she fails to satisfy the conditions of the ‘Triple Test’ for grant of bail.
ED submitted that Arun Pillai, who was a proxy of Kavitha, retracted from his statements earlier made by him during investigation, after 118 days and the only two statements which he retracted from, pertained to the BRS leader.
Kavitha’s counsels seeking the interim bail had told the court that she, as a woman, is seeking bail as she falls within the first proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA and the rigours of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA will have no application on her.
The court rejecting the arguments of the counsels for Kavitha that her case falls within the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act, she being a woman said this court is of the humble opinion that the applicant clearly does not satisfy the ‘Triple Test’ for the grant of relief claimed.
Commenting on the aspect of examinations of her 16-year-old child the court noting that the child has an older sibling, father and maternal aunts (Mausis) and there is no apparent reason as to why these close relatives cannot provide the requisite moral support to the child during his examinations said, “The argument that they cannot be a substitute for the mother to address the exam related anxiety of the child is not a “compelling” reason to grant interim Bail, in the opinion of this court.”
Mentioning the Saumya Chaurasia verdict cited by the counsels for Kavitha urging to give interim bail, the court underlined that the Supreme Court in this judgment has said that Proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act cannot be construed as obligatory and mandatory in nature.
