New Delhi: A court here on Monday dismissed the bail applications filed by BRS leader K Kavitha in corruption and money laundering cases being probed by the CBI and ED in connection with the alleged excise policy scam.
Special Judge for CBI and ED, Kaveri Baweja, dismissed the applications, saying prima facie there appeared to be sufficient material against the accused. “In the light of the discussion, the material on record and the seriousness of allegations against the accused, this court is not inclined to admit the applicant on bail at this stage...
“Though she was not being considered a flight risk, considering her conduct with regard to the threatening of witnesses and also the apprehension that she, being an influential person, may try to influence other witnesses of the case, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage,” the judge said. The application, filed by advocate Nitesh Rana, had claimed that the accused was not required for further investigation and that no purpose will be served by keeping her in further custody.
In the order, the judge accepted the arguments made by the central probe agencies that “the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, which further magnifies in view of it being an economic offence, having tendency to affect the economic system of the country, public interest must take precedence over personal liberty”. The judge further noted that that the investigation of the case is at a very crucial stage on certain key aspects, including the involvement of other public servants and private persons and to ascertain the flow of proceeds of crime.
“The role of the accused also prima facie appears as that of key conspirator of the criminal conspiracy hatched for the purpose of collection and payment of upfront money to AAP through co-accused for getting favourable provisions in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
“Her role in demanding the upfront money and the alleged payment thereof for favourable provisions in the Excise Policy have also been highlighted in the course of arguments and as discussed in the preceding paragraphs,” the judge noted.