The Supreme Court has granted bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader Kalvakuntla Kavitha on August 27. 2024.
Kavitha, daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, had been in custody since her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 15, 2024, followed by her arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 11 while she was already in detention.
The legal proceedings against her were based on allegations of corruption and money laundering related to the Delhi excise policy of 2021-22, which was scrapped amid allegations of favoritism and financial irregularities.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was influenced by several factors, including the completion of investigations by both the ED and CBI and the argument that Kavitha’s prolonged detention was not warranted, given the stage of the legal proceedings.
The court presided over by Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, emphasized that pre-trial detention should not amount to punishment, especially when the trial’s conclusion seemed distant, with over 493 witnesses involved.
The apex court also addressed the issue of evidence, questioning the material presented by the investigative agencies that directly implicated Kavitha in the scam. This scrutiny led to a broader discussion on the rights of the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly highlighting the exceptions for women under Section 45 of the Act.
The court’s observations suggested a dissatisfaction with how the Delhi High Court had previously interpreted these legal protections, leading to the bail denial.
The Supreme Court’s order required Kavitha to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh for each of the cases and to regularly attend trial proceedings, ensuring her cooperation with the judicial process.
Following the bail grant, the BRS supporters celebrated and distributed sweets in various parts of Telangana, indicating the relief and political significance of Kavitha’s release. Party spokespersons and leaders have said that the Supreme Court’s decision subtly acknowledged the fabricated nature of the case against her, pointing towards a broader critique of how political figures are often targeted in legal battles.