The Rouse Avenue court in the national captial on April 8, dismissed the detailed interim bail application of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLC K Kavitha. She had sought interim bail on the grounds that her minor son had school examinations.
She is in judicial custody after the ED remand in the excise policy case. Special judge Kaveri Baweja had dismissed the interim bail application this morning. A detailed bail order has yet to be uploaded. The bail application of the BRS leader was opposed by the counsel for ED, who argued that Kavitha destroyed the evidence in her phone and that witnesses were forced to retract their statements.
Kavitha had filed an application seeking interim bail given the examination of her school going son. Advocates Nitesh Rana and Deepak Nagar also appeared for her.
At the outset, it was argued that being a woman, the rigours of the twin condition under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) do not apply to K Kavitha. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had submitted that when a person falls under exceptions, the twin condition does not apply to that person.
As per Section 45 of PMLA women fall under the category of exceptions for granting bail by the court, Singhvi said.
Singhvi further submitted that there is no flight risk when the passport is submitted. Senior advocate Singhvi submitted that the woman who is accused in this case has a minor child whose exams are this month.
“Her child is 16. It is the question of moral emotional support in this situation. There is an exam anxiety. PM gives a lecture on radio on how to cope with exam anxiety,” Singhvi argued.
“The perspective of the mother can not be substituted by the father or other family member. The father is the one who is managing the legal battle in Delhi and the child is in Telangana,” the senior advocate argued.
The bail application was opposed by advocate Zoheb Hossain, the special counsel for ED. He submitted that the proviso related to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA should be exercised judiciously. Exceptions are not for women who are leading politicians in the State.
He further submitted that Kavitha was a beneficiary in Indo Spirit and Arun Ramchandra Pillai was his proxy in the company.
“I am not relying on the statement only. I have WhatsApp chat and other evidence,” Hossain asserted. The court asked to show the material. The investigation officer showed some documents to the court. Hossain further argued that Kavitha was involved in the destruction of evidence and influencing witnesses.
Special counsel Zoheb Hossain said that he had the case diary and FSL report, which shows how this was done. The special counsel said that she deleted evidence from her phone, deleted data and content on the date she was issued a summons and that no data was found in the App like FaceTime. The BRS leader had deleted evidence from her mobile, Hossain submitted.
ED’s Counsel submitted that on March 11, when Kavitha was confronted, she evaded the question. Hossain submitted that on March 11, she said she would produce the phone on the next date. Though she produced nine mobile phones, these phones were formatted. On being asked about this, she was evasive. The forensic report shows mobile phones were formatted after March 11.
On March 14 and 15, she deleted data from four mobile phones. This phone was tampered with by her. These phones were completely wiped out and it was revealed after an offer to provide a copy of the phones.
The ED’s counsel argued that it was not the first time that this had happened and that over 100 devices have either disappeared or wiped out. The ED’s counsel argued Hossain submitted that this phone was formatted before being handed over and this, he said shows the destruction of evidence.
ED’s Counsel further submitted that Arun Ram Chandra Pillai was the proxy of K Kavitha in Indo Spirit.
Hossain submitted that the ED was at the stage of making a breakthrough and any interim relief to the BRS leader would derail the probe as she is very influential and could influence the people.
Hossain said that witnesses have been called upon and forced to retract their statements. And there are some statements which have been retracted. Her CA has also retracted the statement, the advocate said.
The ED counsel referred to the November 11, 2022. statement of Arun Pillai who was arrested on December 6, 2022
(with inputs from ANI)
Comments