A Delhi court on Thursday reserved its order in the interim bail plea filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the money laundering case against her in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam.
Special Judge (PC Act) Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Courts reserved her verdict after hearing Kavitha and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
She sought the bail on the ground that her son is writing examinations and she needs to give him emotional support.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kavitha, argued that she should get the benefit of bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
He pointed out that Kavitha's son would need her presence since he is currently giving his exams.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for ED, said that the exception to women under the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA is meant for women who lack agency.
"It is not for a woman who is in public life and leading politician of the state," he said.
Regarding Kavitha's son's exam, it was stated that seven out of twelve exams are already over and he also has his father and brother to support him.
Singvi, however, said the ecosystem of a mother being there is different.
“The ED says son is 16 years old and he has a father and a mama. But that cannot substitute for a mother. The father of the child is already fighting these legal battles in Delhi. The child is in Telangana," he said.
Hossain said Kavitha was one of the main accused in the case.
"The lady in question is one of the prime movers of giving bribes. She is also a beneficiary through her proxies. This is not based only on statements but based on documents and WhatsApp chats. This is all corroborated," he contended.
He also claimed that Kavitha destroyed evidence against her including evidence on her mobile phone.
"We are at the stage of making a major breakthrough. Any interim relief will derail the probe. She is very influential and will influence the people," he contended.
The ED counsel argued that there is no evidence to suggest that the young person suffers from any anxiety disorders and these are general arguments, no documents to prove.