The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, August 27, granted bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in connection with corruption and money laundering cases related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. The court stipulated that Kavitha must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and ordered her to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh for each case.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan noted that Kavitha had already been in custody for approximately five months and that the investigation against her by central agencies was ongoing. "The appellant has been behind bars for close to five months; the likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future seems improbable,” the bench observed, citing the submissions from central probe agencies.

The court further acknowledged that certain legal provisions, particularly under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), allow for special consideration in granting bail to specific categories of accused, including women. "The proviso permits the release of certain categories of accused on bail without meeting the twin test. This depends on the facts of each case, but when a statute provides such a benefit, the court must give specific reasons if it intends to deny it,” the court said, criticizing the previous denial of bail by the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's July 1 decision, which had denied Kavitha bail, stating she was prima facie one of the key conspirators in the criminal conspiracy surrounding the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

Opposing the bail plea, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) argued that Kavitha had tampered with evidence by destroying phones and reformatting them, claiming the beneficial proviso under the PMLA did not apply to her. The agencies alleged that her actions amounted to evidence tampering and witness intimidation. However, Justice Viswanathan countered, pointing out that phones contain personal data, and merely reformatting them might not constitute tampering in the absence of additional evidence.

The bench questioned the rationale behind denying the benefit of the PMLA proviso to Kavitha. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju maintained that Kavitha’s actions, such as reformatting her phone, demonstrated tampering with evidence. However, Justice Viswanathan responded by noting that formatting alone may not be sufficient proof of tampering.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kavitha, drew parallels to the bail granted to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, a co-accused in the same cases. Rohatgi emphasized that the investigation was complete and highlighted the extensive documentation, numerous witnesses, and multiple accused involved. He also asserted that Kavitha, as a sitting MLC, posed no flight risk and should be afforded the same benefits as other accused parties.