New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue Court, on Tuesday, extended the judicial remand of Bharat Rashta Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha until May 20. Kavitha was arrested in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case on March 15.
The court scheduled the consideration of the charge sheet filed against Kavitha and others for May 20. Meanwhile, the court staff will review the documents and annexure by that time.
In a plea submitted by K Kavitha, it was mentioned that she is a mother of two children, one of whom is a minor currently under shock and receiving medical supervision. Alleging attempts by members of the ruling party at the Centre to implicate her in the scandal, Kavitha asserted in her fresh bail plea.
Kavitha contended that the entire case of the Enforcement Directorate relies on statements made by the approver, witnesses, or co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA. She argued that the prosecution complaints lack any corroborative documents to support the statements.
Furthermore, Kavitha stated that her arrest is illegal as Section 19 of PMLA has not been complied with. She emphasized the absence of evidence regarding the alleged cash transactions or any money trail, challenging the validity of her arrest order.
On May 6, the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi dismissed bail petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in connection with CBI and ED cases related to the Excise Policy case. Kavitha was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on March 15, 2024, and by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 11, 2024.
Earlier, the CBI, through a remand application, stated that Kavitha Kalvakuntla’s arrest was necessary for her custodial interrogation to confront her with evidence and witnesses and uncover a larger conspiracy related to the formulation and implementation of the Excise Policy. This recommendation followed findings from the Delhi Chief Secretary’s report, which indicated prima facie violations of various regulations.
Both the ED and the CBI alleged irregularities in the modification of the excise policy, extending undue favors to license holders, waiving or reducing license fees, and extending the L-1 license without appropriate approval. The probe agencies accused beneficiaries of diverting illegal gains to officials and making false entries in their account books to evade detection.
Allegations include the refund of earnest money deposits and waivers on tendered license fees, resulting in a purported loss to the exchequer.
