Supreme Court: In bail plea filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (‘BRS’) leader Kalvakuntla Kavitha against the Delhi High Court order rejecting her bail plea, the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. after noting that the investigation is over, and the trial will take a long time to conclude, granted bail to Kalvakuntla Kavitha.
The First Information Report (FIR) registered by the CBI alleged that the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 was manipulated to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation of wholesale and retail liquor trade in Delhi. The other accused persons include Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party leaders Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia.
The Court noted that the CBI case charge-sheet has been filed and in the ED case complaint has been filed. Thus, the K.Kavitha’s custody is not necessary for the investigation.
The Court said that “K. Kavitha has been behind bars for 5 months. The likelihood of trial being concluded in near future is impossible. There are about 493 witnesses to be examined and the documents to be considered are in the range of about 50,000 pages, the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is impossible”.
The Court said that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. The Court also said that K. Kavitha is entitled to beneficial treatment available to women under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
After perusal of the said proviso, the Court noted that permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA to be satisfied. However, tis proviso does not automatically entitle to the benefit and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court clarified that when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied.
Concerning the impugned Delhi High Court order, wherein it was said that a highly qualified and a well-accomplished woman is not entitled to bail under the beneficiary provision for women under PMLA. The Court remarked that the Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”, and misapplied the ratio laid down by this Court in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401.
The Court said that the Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
Thus, the Court granted her bail and set aside the impugned order.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
