Supreme Court grants bail to MLC Kavitha in liquor scam case

Delhi liquor scam case also became an important legal and political event in India which is in discussion because of its consequences and those who are involved in the case such as BRS MLC Kavitha. The case deals with corruption and money laundering charges and involves Kavitha who was involved in a ₹ 100 crore transaction. These are serious allegations, which have attracted investigation by two of the most important organisations of investigation in India, namely the Enforcement Department and the Central Bureau of Investigation. The case has not only created headlines in the Media but also developed controversies with reference to these agencies and judicial system in politically sensitive cases.

Legal Proceedings and Bail Petition

Kavitha’s legal violations were actually started through her arrest and detention which continued for a long time approximately of five months in ED custody and four months in CBI custody respectively. Due to her longstay in the jail Kavitha’s Counsel Mr Mukul Rohatgi senior advocate submitted petition to Supreme court for bail. Rohatgi’s bail submission was based on the legal tenet that nothing concrete has been unearthed by the ED and CBI for a year of her being in jail so as to warrant such detention. This is his view was especially due to the fact that the police had failed to present tangible evidence linking Kavitha into any wrong doings that warranted a denial of bail.

It is pertinent to note that Section 45 of the PMLA was the key argument of Rohatgi’s defense. This section provides room for determination of bail if case against the accused is not strong enough to warrant his or her continued detention. Rohatgi pointed that this was exactly the position in Kavitha’s case where the materials collected by the investigative agencies were inadequate to contain her beyond bars. This legal argument raised the right voice behind the detention of Kavitha which helped to present a balanced right of accused as well as the right of justice.

Defense Arguments

Speaking for Kavitha, Rohatgi concentrated in giving reasons why the allegations against her were untenable. He said that the allegations made against him were false and could not be believed for as long as every other person, who was named in the case had become approvers. Accomplices are people who in order to receive similar treatment from the police as an accused, assist the authorities as well as supply the policemen with information on other suspects involved in the alleged crime. Rohatgi stated that none of these approvers had named Kavitha in their statements and therefore reducing the strength against her.

In addition, Rohatgi said that Kavitha had not done anything that would warrant her to continue being detained. In particular, he highlighted the fact that as per the records, Kavitha had not committed any act of intimidating any witness or any person connected with the case in question and that this too is considered while granting bail. He also said it in comparative with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who has also been accused by the ED but was released on bail. This was meant to draw Rohatgi’s attention towards what he considered double standard in the handling of some persons of the case in favour of Kavitha’s release.

Prosecution’s Opposition

For the enforcement of the same, the prosecution side led by ASG SV Raju made a compulsive rebuttal against the bail grant to Kavitha. Based on the above, the following are the issues that flew through Raju’s defense: Raju accused Kavitha of meddling with the vital parts of the evidence, especially her mobile phones. Raju, the witness, said in her testimonial that after being served by the ED Kavitha allegedly deleted and formatted her phones which deleted the records. He said this was done in an effort to try and stop the investigation and therefore she should not be allowed to be granted bail.

Raju also further noted that the actions of Kavitha were not expected of an innocent person. He noted that they may erase some information or even delete their number but it is rather queer when a person format a phone completely and this was what aroused suspicion on the part of the duo. In Kavitha’s case, only ten days of data could be recovered from her phone which according to Raju showed that she had tried to delete vital evidence. He pointed out that it showed a desire to obstruct the probe hence why she should remain in detention as the legally process continued.

Supreme Court’s Deliberation and Decision

The Supreme Court by having the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was very keen on analyzing thearguments before it. The decision in this case meant that the court had to align the nature of the charges and the harshness of the punishment and the absence of concrete evidence as well as the prolonged detention of Kavitha. The reason that bail was granted was due to the defense’s assertion that there was no sufficient evidence against Kavitha to let her remain behind bars.

The court understood that although the accusations were severe, the moreover detained applicant without credible evidence, the legal procedure might not be completely fair. The court also asked the police not to use its decision to release Kavitha on bail as acquitting her because it was an interim measure meant to protect the suspect’s rights while (police conducted the investigation).

Implications of the Bail Decision

This case also has legal and political resonances in that Supreme Court’s decision was to grant bail to Kavitha . In the legal aspect, one can notice that such a decision reflects the prosecution’s difficulties to fight financial crimes without violating civil liberties. These questions relate to the analysis of the procedural state of affairs about the PMLA and the powers of the investigative agencies namely the ED and the CBI. When controversies are steeped with political implications, the legal procedure is in a position to balance the need to dispense justice and fight abuse of authority.

Politically the case remains relevant as a subject of debate regarding work of investigative agencies in relation to cases involving personalities. The decision of the court to release Kavitha on bail is going to attract the legal and the political discourse in Indian as it defines the contest for Law, Politics, and Justice. The case therefore remains a major event in the larger story that deals with the fight against financial crimes in the country.