New Delhi: Delhi high Court The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its verdict on July 1, 2024, in connection with the bail petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in matters related to the excise policy and being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.CBI) And this Enforcement Directorate (Ed).
After hearing arguments from all concerned parties, a bench of Justice Swarnakanta Sharma reserved the order for May 28, 2024.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, advocate Nitesh Rana and other lawyers Mohit Rao and Deepak Nagar presented their arguments on behalf of K Kavitha. Advocate DP Singh appeared on behalf of CBI and advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of ED.
The CBI countered this Bail pleaHe argued that the ongoing investigation was at a crucial stage, involving other public servants and private individuals as well, and the flow of illegal money was being traced.
He submitted that if Kavita is granted bail, there is a grave danger that she may hamper the investigation, especially if she fails to satisfy the ‘triple test’ as laid down by constitutional courts in various instances.
“The accused petitioner having been released on bail, there is every likelihood that she would sabotage the investigation, more so when she fails to satisfy the ‘triple test’ as laid down by constitutional courts in several judgements,” the CBI said in its opposition to the bail plea.
The ED also opposed Kavita’s bail plea, saying that the standard conditions were inadequate to ensure the presence of the accused in the trial or to protect evidence. Money laundering The cross-border nature of the cases and the potential influence of the accused could make them vulnerable to prosecution. He warned that the accused could use modern technology to covertly trace the money trail, thereby undermining the investigation and trial process.
“In the case of offence of money laundering, the usual conditions of ensuring presence of the accused during trial or ensuring protection of evidence are not sufficient, as the nature of offence is cross-border and influence can be exerted by the accused. The accused can remove the money trail anonymously using the technology available today, thereby rendering investigation and prosecution futile,” the ED argued.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI in connection with the bail pleas of Kavitha in the money laundering case linked to Delhi’s now-scrapped excise policy. The ED recently submitted a supplementary prosecution complaint (chargesheet) in the excise policy money laundering case in the Rouse Avenue Court. The chargesheet includes allegations against K Kavitha, Chanpreet Singh, Damodar, Prince Singh and Arvind Kumar.
In her bail plea, K Kavitha highlighted her family responsibilities and said that she is a mother of two children, one of whom is a minor and is currently under medical care. She asserted that there was an attempt by members of the ruling party at the Centre to implicate her in the scam.
In his latest bail plea, he argued that the entire case built against him by the Enforcement Directorate is solely based on the statements of witnesses and co-accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The entire case of the Enforcement Directorate rests on the statements made by approvers, witnesses or co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA. There is not a single document to corroborate the statements in the prosecution complaints. There is not a single evidence which points towards the guilt of the applicant,” he said.
He further claimed that his to arrest He said it was illegal, and did not comply with Section 19 of the PMLA. He argued that there was no evidence of any actual cash transaction or movement of money, making the statement of his guilt in the arrest order superficial and superficial.
“The arrest of the applicant is illegal as Section 19 of PMLA has not been complied with. Neither there is any corroboration of the allegation of actual cash transaction nor any trace of money has been found, therefore, the satisfaction of offence expressed in the arrest order is a mere sham and a sham,” he said.
On May 6, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court had rejected the bail pleas filed by K Kavitha in connection with both the CBI and ED cases related to the excise policy. Following her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 15, 2024, and by the CBI on April 11, 2024, the remand application was moved citing the need for custodial interrogation.
The CBI in its remand application said, “It was necessary to arrest Kavitha Kalvakuntla in this case for custodial interrogation along with evidence and witnesses to unearth the larger conspiracy hatched amongst the accused/suspects with regard to formulation and implementation of the excise policy and to unearth the source of illegally earned money and to establish the role of other accused/suspects including public servants and to unearth the facts which are in her special knowledge.”
The CBI probe was recommended following a report by Delhi chief secretary in July, which prima facie indicated violations of the GNCTD Act 1991, Transaction of Business Rules (TOBR)-1993, Delhi Excise Act-2009 and Delhi Excise Rules-2010.
The allegations levelled by the ED and the CBI claimed that irregularities had occurred during the amendment of the excise policy, including extending undue benefits to licence holders, exempting or reducing licence fees and extending L-1 licences without proper authorisation.
He alleged that the benefits received were illegally passed on to officials, and false entries were made in the financial records to avoid detection. The Excise Department also decided to refund the earnest money of about Rs 30 crore to a successful tenderer, allegedly against prescribed rules.
Despite the lack of enabling provision, exemption on tender licence fee from December 28, 2021 to January 27, 2022 due to Covid-19 was allegedly granted, resulting in an alleged loss of Rs 144.36 crore to the government exchequer.
After hearing arguments from all concerned parties, a bench of Justice Swarnakanta Sharma reserved the order for May 28, 2024.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, advocate Nitesh Rana and other lawyers Mohit Rao and Deepak Nagar presented their arguments on behalf of K Kavitha. Advocate DP Singh appeared on behalf of CBI and advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of ED.
The CBI countered this Bail pleaHe argued that the ongoing investigation was at a crucial stage, involving other public servants and private individuals as well, and the flow of illegal money was being traced.
He submitted that if Kavita is granted bail, there is a grave danger that she may hamper the investigation, especially if she fails to satisfy the ‘triple test’ as laid down by constitutional courts in various instances.
“The accused petitioner having been released on bail, there is every likelihood that she would sabotage the investigation, more so when she fails to satisfy the ‘triple test’ as laid down by constitutional courts in several judgements,” the CBI said in its opposition to the bail plea.
The ED also opposed Kavita’s bail plea, saying that the standard conditions were inadequate to ensure the presence of the accused in the trial or to protect evidence. Money laundering The cross-border nature of the cases and the potential influence of the accused could make them vulnerable to prosecution. He warned that the accused could use modern technology to covertly trace the money trail, thereby undermining the investigation and trial process.
“In the case of offence of money laundering, the usual conditions of ensuring presence of the accused during trial or ensuring protection of evidence are not sufficient, as the nature of offence is cross-border and influence can be exerted by the accused. The accused can remove the money trail anonymously using the technology available today, thereby rendering investigation and prosecution futile,” the ED argued.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI in connection with the bail pleas of Kavitha in the money laundering case linked to Delhi’s now-scrapped excise policy. The ED recently submitted a supplementary prosecution complaint (chargesheet) in the excise policy money laundering case in the Rouse Avenue Court. The chargesheet includes allegations against K Kavitha, Chanpreet Singh, Damodar, Prince Singh and Arvind Kumar.
In her bail plea, K Kavitha highlighted her family responsibilities and said that she is a mother of two children, one of whom is a minor and is currently under medical care. She asserted that there was an attempt by members of the ruling party at the Centre to implicate her in the scam.
In his latest bail plea, he argued that the entire case built against him by the Enforcement Directorate is solely based on the statements of witnesses and co-accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The entire case of the Enforcement Directorate rests on the statements made by approvers, witnesses or co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA. There is not a single document to corroborate the statements in the prosecution complaints. There is not a single evidence which points towards the guilt of the applicant,” he said.
He further claimed that his to arrest He said it was illegal, and did not comply with Section 19 of the PMLA. He argued that there was no evidence of any actual cash transaction or movement of money, making the statement of his guilt in the arrest order superficial and superficial.
“The arrest of the applicant is illegal as Section 19 of PMLA has not been complied with. Neither there is any corroboration of the allegation of actual cash transaction nor any trace of money has been found, therefore, the satisfaction of offence expressed in the arrest order is a mere sham and a sham,” he said.
On May 6, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court had rejected the bail pleas filed by K Kavitha in connection with both the CBI and ED cases related to the excise policy. Following her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 15, 2024, and by the CBI on April 11, 2024, the remand application was moved citing the need for custodial interrogation.
The CBI in its remand application said, “It was necessary to arrest Kavitha Kalvakuntla in this case for custodial interrogation along with evidence and witnesses to unearth the larger conspiracy hatched amongst the accused/suspects with regard to formulation and implementation of the excise policy and to unearth the source of illegally earned money and to establish the role of other accused/suspects including public servants and to unearth the facts which are in her special knowledge.”
The CBI probe was recommended following a report by Delhi chief secretary in July, which prima facie indicated violations of the GNCTD Act 1991, Transaction of Business Rules (TOBR)-1993, Delhi Excise Act-2009 and Delhi Excise Rules-2010.
The allegations levelled by the ED and the CBI claimed that irregularities had occurred during the amendment of the excise policy, including extending undue benefits to licence holders, exempting or reducing licence fees and extending L-1 licences without proper authorisation.
He alleged that the benefits received were illegally passed on to officials, and false entries were made in the financial records to avoid detection. The Excise Department also decided to refund the earnest money of about Rs 30 crore to a successful tenderer, allegedly against prescribed rules.
Despite the lack of enabling provision, exemption on tender licence fee from December 28, 2021 to January 27, 2022 due to Covid-19 was allegedly granted, resulting in an alleged loss of Rs 144.36 crore to the government exchequer.
