The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in separate cases initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over her alleged involvement in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
The order was passed by the Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan on the grounds that the investigation was over and there was little possibility of the trial concluding any time in the near future.
It observed that since the probe was complete and a charge sheet had been filed in the case, the custody of the appellant, who had been languishing behind bars for the past five months, was not required.
As said in various pronouncements of this court, the undertrial custody should not turn into a punishment, noted the Bench, adding that the BRS leader was entitled to beneficial treatment available to women under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Bench further took strong exception to the Delhi High Court’s ‘perverse’ observations that an educated and sophisticated woman was not entitled to bail under the special consideration for women under PMLA.
It observed that the Delhi High Court order, if allowed to become law, would mean that no educated woman could get bail. It would apply at least to all courts in the jurisdiction of Delhi.
The courts should not differentiate between an MP and a common person, but here, on the contrary, the High Court was finding an artificial discretion, which was not there in statute, noted the Apex Court.
It further saw contradiction in the High Court’s reasoning to deny the benefit of Section 46 PMLA to Kavitha.
While denying relief under Section 45, the High Court had noted that Kavitha was a well-educated woman, who had made significant contributions through her social work. On this ground, the single-judge Bench concluded that she was not a vulnerable person and refused to grant her the benefit available to women under the proviso of Section 45 PMLA.
While recording her accomplishments, the High Court said it could not lose sight of serious allegations and proceeded to observe that the appellant could not be a vulnerable woman, noted the Apex Court.
It said the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic to those in that category. The single-judge Bench totally misdirected herself in applying the proviso.