A Delhi court recently dismissed the default bail petition filed by K. Kavitha, a prominent leader from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS). This decision came after Kavitha withdrew her plea seeking default bail in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The court's ruling, delivered by Special Judge Kaveri Baweja at the Rouse Avenue court, was straightforward—the plea was dismissed as it was officially withdrawn by Kavitha’s counsel.
Kavitha had initially sought default bail on the grounds that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to file a complete charge sheet within the required 60 days. The request was for default bail due to the delay, with an interim bail sought during the ongoing proceedings. Her previous bail applications had been turned down by both the trial and high courts.
The CBI had arrested Kavitha on April 11, in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case, following an earlier arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 15. The CBI filed its charge sheet on June 6, which the court has since acknowledged.
In a separate development, the Delhi High Court also dismissed a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had challenged his arrest by the CBI. The High Court ruled that Kejriwal’s arrest was justified and dismissed his plea, allowing him to seek relief through the trial court.
Kejriwal’s legal team had urged the court to expedite its decision on his petitions, but the bench reserved its order on his regular bail plea on July 29, 2024. The court had also reserved its order on a plea challenging his arrest on July 17, 2024.
During the hearings, the CBI argued against Kejriwal’s bail, labelling him as the “sutradhar,” or central figure, in the excise policy case. CBI Special Counsel DP Singh detailed that as the investigation progressed, more evidence implicating Kejriwal emerged. The chargesheet named six individuals, including Kejriwal, although only one other had been arrested.
The CBI’s investigation, which they claimed was thorough, revealed Rs 44 crores related to the case that had been sent to Goa. The CBI alleged that Kejriwal had instructed his candidates to focus on elections rather than worry about the funds.
Singh contended that although direct evidence might be scarce, witness testimonies and court statements strongly indicated Kejriwal’s involvement. He argued that these revelations came to light only after Kejriwal’s arrest, as witnesses had been reluctant to come forward earlier. Singh also noted that Kejriwal had sought retroactive approval from his cabinet after the media coverage intensified.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the case amounted to an “insurance arrest.” He pointed out that Kejriwal had been granted bail three times in the ED case and stressed that there had been no new confrontations or developments since Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI. Singhvi emphasised that the excise policy in question was the result of extensive deliberations over a year and involved multiple inter-ministerial committees.
Singhvi also highlighted that Kejriwal, as both the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party and Chief Minister of Delhi, was facing what he described as persecution and harassment for ulterior motives. He urged the court to consider these aspects while reviewing Kejriwal’s bail application.
As the legal proceedings continue, both K. Kavitha and Arvind Kejriwal face ongoing scrutiny and legal challenges related to the excise policy case, with significant implications for their political careers and personal freedoms.
Follow us
