Kavitha Granted Bail in Delhi Liquor Scam Case

In a significant relief, BRS MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha has been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the Delhi liquor scam case. The two-judge bench heard her bail petitions related to the ED and CBI cases simultaneously. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Kavitha, while the Additional Solicitor General argued on behalf of the ED for about an hour and a half. After considering the arguments from both sides, the bench granted bail to Kavitha.

The CBI has already filed the final chargesheet, and the ED has completed its investigation. Given that the investigations are now concluded, the bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Viswanathan, ruled that there is no need for the accused to remain in custody. "Based on these key points, we grant bail to the accused," the bench stated.

Kavitha was taken into custody by the ED on March 15 at her residence, and the CBI arrested her on April 11 in connection with the Delhi liquor scam. She has spent over five months in Tihar Jail in this case.

Bail Conditions for Kavitha:

Kavitha must provide a bond of Rs 10 lakhs per case and submit two sureties.

Kavitha's passport must be surrendered to the court.

Kavitha should not influence witnesses.

Kavitha must cooperate with the ongoing investigation in the Delhi liquor scam case.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted that co-accused Manish Sisodia has already been granted bail. The chargesheets in both the ED and CBI cases have been filed, and the investigation is complete. There are 57 accused in this case. The assertion that Kavitha is not a vulnerable woman is not accurate. It would be unjust to deny bail to Kavitha while granting it to Sisodia. Kavitha meets the criteria for bail, having spent over five months in jail under the ED case and four months under the CBI case. Although the ED and CBI accused her of accepting ₹100 crores in bribes, they have not recovered even a single rupee.

Justice Gavai's Observations:

Kavitha is not illiterate.

Is she not aware of what is right and wrong?

Why did the approver withdraw their statement?

The Delhi High Court has stated that Kavitha is not a vulnerable woman.

There is a distinction between a woman of high standing and a vulnerable woman.

CBI's Arguments:

Kavitha formatted her phone to erase data, allegedly as part of a conspiracy. Chats with Gautam Gupta were deleted.

ED's Arguments:

Kavitha tampered with evidence. Why was there no data on her Apple FaceTime app? How did data disappear if the phone had been in use for four or five months?