Court Denies Bail to Prominent Politician in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam

Background

The case involves the alleged criminal conspiracy and money laundering activities related to the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) have accused prominent politician Smt. K. Kavitha of being a key conspirator in the scam.

Arguments

The applicant, Smt. K. Kavitha , argued that the CBI's case against her was based solely on the statements of approvers and witnesses, which should not be relied upon at the bail stage. She also claimed that her arrest was illegal and unnecessary, as she was already in judicial custody in a related case. The ED, on the other hand, presented evidence from witness statements, digital evidence, and financial transactions that allegedly linked Smt. Kavitha to the money laundering activities.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court examined the material collected by the investigating agencies and found that there was prima facie evidence of Smt. Kavitha 's involvement in the criminal conspiracy and money laundering activities. The court held that the statements of approvers and witnesses recorded under Sections 164 and 50 of the relevant laws were admissible and could be relied upon at the bail stage.

The court also noted that Smt. Kavitha 's conduct, such as the formatting of her mobile phones, raised concerns about the possibility of her tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if released on bail. Additionally , the court found that the applicant, being a prominent politician, did not qualify for the special treatment accorded to vulnerable groups under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Decision

The court dismissed the bail applications filed by Smt. K. Kavitha in the CBI and ED cases, concluding that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not fulfilled, and the applicant did not meet the triple test for the grant of bail. The court, however, clarified that its observations were limited to the purpose of deciding the bail applications and did not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.