“Bail Is ‘Normal Practice’ For Women”: Supreme Court Relief For K Kavitha

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha following her arrest – by the ED in March and the CBI a month later – in the Delhi liquor policy scam, in which Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his ex deputy, Manish Sisodia, are also named.

Ms Kavitha is the second big opposition leader to get bail in this case; Mr Sisodia, who was arrested in February last year, was released earlier this month after the Supreme Court noting a delay in trial in his case too, said he could not be jailed for an “unlimited time” as it is a violation of his fundamental rights.

Today a two-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan pointed Ms Kavitha – like Mr Sisodia – had already spent over five months in jail and that “the trial is not expected soon”.

“We find the investigation is complete. As such, custody of appellant is not necessary… she is in jail for five months and, as observed with Sisodia, likelihood of trial be in near future is impossible…” it said.

READ | “As Observed In Manish Sisodia…”: What Supreme Court Said

The court also noted “the law provides special treatment for women while considering bail applications”, referring to provisions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that “permits certain category of accused, including women, to be released on bail without (satisfying) twin requirements.”

READ | Delhi High Court Rejects K Kavitha’s Bail Pleas In Liquor Policy Case

On this note the Supreme Court strongly objected to the Delhi High Court rejecting Ms Kavitha’s plea – on grounds she is an educated woman. The High Court had said in July that Ms Kavitha could not be given bail – despite arguments that it is “normal practice” for women to be released on bail – as her education and status (of a former Member of Parliament) meant she was not a ‘vulnerable’ woman.

Arguing the High Court had “totally misapplied” the relevant section of the law, the Supreme Court said, “… the courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise discretion judicially. The court cannot say that merely because a woman is highly educated, or an MLA, (she) should be denied benefit of bail.”

“(Then) every arrested woman will get bail…” the prosecution argued in vain.

“Bail Is ‘Normal Practice’ For Women”

Earlier senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued it is “normal practice” for women to get bail. The plea also identified her as mother to two kids, one of whom is a minor in shock and undergoing medical care.

He also pointed out Ms Kavitha had, by now, spent over five months in jail without either agency having recovered the Rs 100 crore the ‘South group’ allegedly paid to the AAP for liquor licenses.

“She is an ex-MP and there is no chance she will flee from justice…the normal practice is that women do get bail,” he stressed, to which the court responded, “(But) she is not a ‘vulnerable’ woman.”

“There is no recovery… allegation is ‘South’ lobby paid Rs 100 crore but there is no recovery. The allegation is also she threatened a witness but it is only their word…” Mr Rohatgi replied.

On Phones And Deleted Messages

The argument then shifted to claims by the prosecution that Ms Kavitha had deleted text messages – key evidence, it was argued – from her mobile phone and then reformatted the device. In June authorities accused her of having wiped clean eight mobile phones and reformatted at least one.

However, Ms Kavitha has denied this claim. And today Mr Rohatgi hit out at the ED’s “bogus” claim”, arguing, “How can you say I ‘destroyed’ my phone… people change phones. I changed my phone.”

READ | Kavitha Destroyed 9 Phones, Stayed In ₹10 Lakh Room: ED

The prosecution, though, questioned Ms Kavitha’s actions, counter-arguing, “Why would you give a maid or a servant an iPhone (authorities had earlier said the BRS leader gave one of the reformatted phones to her maid)… her conduct amounts to tampering (with evidence).”

The prosecution also questioned how a phone used by a senior political leader for at least four months could contain no messages. “On examination of the phone it is found there is no data (but) you have been using the phone for four to six months?”

The Supreme Court, though, was unconvinced, and pointed out that “people delete messages”. “I have a habit of deleting messages… normal conduct. Any of us in this room (do it),” Justice Viswanathan said, but the prosecution responded, “You do not delete contacts, history…”

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.