The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday arrested Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in connection with a corruption case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. Kavitha, 46, the daughter of former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao, was held in Tihar jail where she was lodged after her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the excise “scam” on March 15.
A CBI source said they had earlier recorded Kavitha’s statement and now got some crucial evidence to arrest her. “Investigation has so far revealed that one of the accused in the case, Vijay Nair, received kickbacks to the tune of at least Rs 100 crore from a group called South Group controlled by Sarath Reddy, Kavitha, and Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy on behalf of AAP leaders,” the source added.
The CBI arrested Kavitha in jail number 6 of Tihar prison around 12 noon on Thursday under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 477-A (falsification of accounts) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the officials said. The agency had questioned Kavitha inside the prison on Saturday after obtaining permission from a special court. The BRS leader was questioned on WhatsApp chats recovered from co-accused Buchi Babu’s phone and documents related to a land deal after which Rs 100 crore was allegedly paid to Delhi’s ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in kickbacks to swing the now-scrapped excise policy in favour of a liquor lobby.
While Kavitha will remain in Tihar jail on Thursday, the agency is likely to produce her before a court on Friday to seek her remand. If the CBI gets her remand, Kavitha will be moved to a lockup at the agency headquarters where she will be questioned by officers of the Anti-Corruption Branch, which is probing the case, the officials said.
The ED had arrested Kavitha from her Banjara Hills residence in Hyderabad. It has alleged that one of the accused, Vijay Nair, received kickbacks to the tune of at least Rs 100 crore from a group called South Group (controlled by Sarath Reddy, Kavitha, Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy) on behalf of AAP leaders.
The CBI, which has so far filed three charge sheets against a number of accused, including former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, has alleged that kickbacks worth around Rs 90-100 crore were paid in advance to some AAP leaders and public servants by some people in the liquor business from south India through Nair and co-accused Abhishek Boinpally and Dinesh Arora.
Earlier, Kavitha had approached the court for interim bail, claiming her 16-year-old son has exams and needs her “moral and emotional support”.
“From the material placed before this court, it appears that the Applicant not only engaged in destruction of material evidence by formatting her phones before joining the investigation and after being served with notice requiring her to do so, along with her digital devices, which stands established by way of the forensic report in this regard, but also has been instrumental in influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of her continuing to do so in case the relief prayed for is granted to her,” Special Judge Kaveri Baweja said while rejecting her interim bail application.
The judge said Kavitha was stated to be highly educated, and by no standards can be said to a vulnerable woman who could be made a scapegoat for committing the alleged offences. She is undoubtedly a “well-educated” and “well-placed woman in the society”.
“The material placed before this court in the course of arguments prima facie points towards her active involvement in commission of the alleged offences as also towards her deliberate act of causing destruction of evidence, besides attempting to influence witnesses of the case,” the judge said.
In response to Kavitha’s submission that her husband was busy pursuing litigation on her behalf, the judge said it was not a “convincing reason” for grant of interim bail, and added that “it also appears that so called exam related anxiety of the child does not seem to be his (father’s) priority”.
The judge said there was no apparent reason as to why close relatives (older sibling, father and maternal aunts, i.E., mausis) cannot provide the requisite moral support to the child during his examinations.
The argument that they cannot be a substitute for the mother to address the exam related anxiety of the child is not a compelling reason to grant interim bail, she said.
