Merely because woman is sophisticated…: Supreme Court on K Kavitha’s bail

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in both the ED and CBI cases linked to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.

She is the third high-profile leader to be granted bail in the case after AAP leaders Manisha Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. Noting that the trial in the case would take a long time to conclude, a similar observation made while granting bail to Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court said K Kavitha was entitled to beneficial treatment available to women under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Kavitha, who has been lodged at Tihar Jail for five months, was arrested by the ED on March 15 in Hyderabad amid high drama. The CBI also subsequently arrested her on April 11.

The probe agency has claimed Kavitha, the daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister KCR, was involved in the exchange of bribes and the laundering of money in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

K KAVITHA BAIL: WHAT SUPREME COURT SAID
She (K Kavitha) has been behind bars for 5 months. The likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future is impossible. As said in various pronouncements, undertrial custody should not turn into a punishment.

Kavitha is entitled to beneficial treatment available to women under Section 45 of PMLA. Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards women accused under the PMLA.

The courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise discretion judicially. The court does not say that merely because a woman is well-educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislative Council is not entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act.

If this Delhi High Court order is allowed to become law, these perverse observations would mean no educated woman can get bail. On the contrary, we say courts should not differ between an MP and a common person, but here (High Court is) finding an artificial discretion not there in the statute.

The prosecution has to be fair. A person who incriminates himself has been made a witness. Tomorrow you pick up anyone as you please? You cannot pick and choose any accused.