BRS leader K. Kavitha (46 years) has got bail in the Delhi Excise Policy Scam case. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ordered K. Kavitha to be granted bail in both the CBI and ED cases, after which she has been released from Tihar Jail. K. Kavitha is accused of being involved in corruption and money laundering. The Supreme Court has questioned the impartiality of the investigation and reprimanded the agencies. The court has also criticized the investigating agencies for their pick and choose attitude. The investigating agencies argued that K. Kavitha has tampered with the evidence and formatted or changed her phone and also deleted the messages from the mobile. On this, the court said that this is not a crime. The phone is a personal thing. People often keep deleting messages.
K. Kavitha was lodged in Tihar Jail for 5 months. The Enforcement Directorate arrested her from her residence in Hyderabad on March 15. Later, the CBI also arrested her on April 11. K. Kavitha had sought bail from the Supreme Court in both the cases. Earlier, she had filed a petition in the Delhi High Court. On July 1, the Delhi High Court rejected K. Kavitha’s petition. She challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
‘Formatted the mobile to save myself’
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan heard the case in the Supreme Court. During this, the debate started on the allegations of the prosecution (investigating agency). Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing on behalf of ED-CBI, said, K. Kavitha deleted the text messages from the mobile as primary evidence to save herself. Formatted and replaced her mobile phone. Gave that phone to her servant and then bought a new cellphone. In June, the investigating officers had alleged that K. Kavitha had deleted the data from her eight mobile phones and formatted one phone.
‘How can allegations be made four months before the inquiry?’
However, K. Kavitha has denied the allegations. Lawyer Mukul Rohatgi termed the allegations as fake and said, “It was publicised in the remand application of a co-accused in November 2022 that I had destroyed my phone. Whereas I was first summoned by the ED for questioning on March 7, 2023. In such a situation, how can you make allegations 4 months in advance?” He questioned, “How can you say that I ‘destroyed’ evidence from my phone? People keep changing phones. I changed my phone and gave some of my old phones to the employees, as they upgraded their phones. K. Kavitha I have been upgrading my phone. Gave the old phone to my staff. People who keep buying phones keep doing so in a few weeks. They keep changing phones like toys. People also keep changing vehicles.”
‘This behaviour is akin to tampering with evidence’
However, the investigating agency’s lawyer argued, why would you give an iPhone to a servant? Earlier, officials had said that K. Kavitha had given a new phone to her maid. Such behavior is equivalent to tampering with evidence. The investigating agency had raised concerns about the messages being deleted on the phone allegedly used by K. Kavitha for four months. The investigating agency said that no data was found in K. Kavitha’s phone. Whereas you kept using this phone for four to six months.
At the same time, Rohatgi said that K. Kavitha was first called by the investigating agency in March 2024. Whereas she had changed her phone four months ago. On this, ASG Raju said, when K. Kavitha was called for questioning, it was seen that her phone had been formatted. All call records, FaceTime data etc. have been deleted from that phone. She has given this phone to one of her associates or servants. Her conduct is akin to tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses.
‘Phone is a private thing, people delete messages’
The Supreme Court disagreed with the arguments of the investigating agency. Justice KV Vishwanathan said that the phone is a private thing. There will be other things in it as well. Does anyone share his details with anyone? People delete messages. Messages can be partially deleted in exchange. Like I have a habit of deleting messages sent in school and college groups, where a lot of things are posted. Many messages keep getting posted in the group. We should look at normal human conduct. Anyone in this room would do this. People keep deleting messages from their mobile. I also have a habit of deleting messages. This is normal behavior. Anyone of us present in this room would do this. At the same time, the investigating agency again argued that you do not delete contacts or history. ASG also said, this was not routine formatting, but a complete draft of sensitive data, which is equivalent to tampering with evidence.
‘Nobody deletes call history’
ASG Raju further said, people delete messages but no one deletes photos, contacts and call history. During interrogation, she (K. Kavitha) says that I have given my phone to someone. On this, Justice Gavai asked whether there is any proof that they destroyed the evidence? Justice Vishwanathan asked, can any kind of crime be proved by this act alone. Do you have any independent data that shows that there was any evidence to prove the crime? Otherwise it will only show that the cellphone was formatted. ASG replied that the call detail record (CDR) shows that he has had conversations with other accused. Evidence has been found from other phones which confirms that he has done this (formatting) to hide evidence.
The court prima facie agreed with Rohatgi and said that merely formatting the mobile phone cannot be sufficient ground to establish a prima facie case against Kavita.
On what basis did the Supreme Court grant bail?
Earlier, the double bench, while granting bail to K. Kavitha, said that since 493 witnesses are to be questioned in both the CBI-ED cases, 50,000 pages of documents are yet to be examined. In such a situation, the trial is not likely to be completed in the near future. K. Kavitha’s custody is no longer needed in both the cases, as both the agencies have completed their investigation against her. The court has also imposed conditions while granting bail. The bench said, directed the appellant (Kavitha) to be released immediately on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh each in the case of both the agencies. She will not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and will submit her passport to the trial judge. She will regularly attend the trial court proceedings.
When the court reprimanded the agencies
There came a time in the court when there were questions and answers about a witness and the court reprimanded the investigating agencies. The bench said that the prosecution (investigation agency) should be impartial and no one can be selected and made an accused. The person who has convicted himself was made a witness? The court expressed surprise at the role played by that witness that he was not made an accused and he became a witness. In fact, Mukul Rohatgi, the lawyer appearing on behalf of K. Kavitha, said, Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy (South Indian liquor businessman) is a witness. Whereas he had convicted himself. His son Raghav Magunta has been made an accused and then he was made a government witness and was pardoned within 7 days. On this, Justice Gavai said, it is sad to see these circumstances. If he has any role, then his role is equal to that of Kavitha, so will you choose anyone? The prosecution should be impartial. The person who convicted himself became a witness. Tomorrow you can choose (accuse) anyone as per your wish and release anyone as per your wish? You cannot choose and keep any accused. What is this fairness?
K. Kavitha, daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao, is accused of being involved in the Delhi liquor scam. Investigative agencies claim that K. Kavitha was part of the South Lobby (a group of liquor businessmen and politicians). She allegedly paid a bribe of Rs 100 crore to Delhi’s ruling AAP in exchange for a liquor license. However, K. Kavitha has denied all the allegations.
Source (PTI) (NDTV) (HINDUSTANTIMES)