Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 2

CITATION	2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269.
DATE OF JUDGMENT	27^th August, 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Kalvakuntla Kavitha
RESPONDENT	Directorate of Enforcement
BENCH	B.R. Gavai & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

This judgement was passed on the 27th of August 2024; by the Supreme Court of India in this case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement. This decision has emerged from Criminal Appeals against order refusing bail by the Delhi High Court in two applications under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The appellant Kalvakuntla Kavitha who was at the material time a political person, a Member of Parliament, has been in custody for five months now and has filed for bail.

The Court acknowledged the factors that comes with several documents and witnesses which makes it clear that it will not be a speedy trial. While the prosecution alleged that Kavitha was a key planner of a conspiracy, the Court pointed out that arguments on the merits of the case were not determinative for the purpose of bail.

The judgment pointed out the provisions of the statute to give special treatment to woman accused under the PMLA, the judge arguing that the provisions of the Act should not be strictly interpreted as applying to vulnerable women only. The Supreme Court observed that High Court erred in law in denying bail by applying the principles in the manner mentioned above. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s refusal of bail in the case of Kavitha Mirchandani on terms and conditions such as not meddling with the material objects in the case and attending the trial, if called upon. Its implications indicate that while the court should maintain legal presumption of innocence, political aspects in bail issues require a vivid judicial discretion due to high stakes.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Kalvakuntla Kavitha, is appealing against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which has refused to grant her bail in two applications on money laundering charges.
The High Court passed the order on and was denying bail on ground that appellant committed serious offences and the prosecution has brought material against him.
Kavitha has spent five months in custody before the Supreme Court decided the case, which involves her appeal for bail.
The present case refers to money laundering under the PMLA, resulting from charges that Kavitha reportedly had a major participation in a conspiracy.
In one case, the charge-sheet has been filed and, in the other, a complaint has been submitted, which shows there is no further investigative requirement for Kavitha’s detention.
The prosecution says that there should be about 493 witnesses and about five thousand, five hundred (5000) pages of documents in this case.
Defence council representing Kavitha said that not a single proceed of crime has traced back to Kavitha and she deserves special treatment under PMLA due to her gender.
Additional Solicitor General of India opposed Kavitha’s bail petition to this division and accused Kavitha of obstructing the evidence and interfering with witness statements.
The High Court rejected the bail application arguing that Kavitha is a successful woman who is also a political leader and as such there can be no exception made on her regarding these allegations.
The Supreme Court found that High Court had erred in its approach towards the legal tenet about women’s special treatment under PMLA which paved way for cancellation of the bail order.
But the Supreme Court later set bail for Kavitha having some restrictions such as the prevention of any interference with the evidence and adherence to the trial sessions.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether there exist sufficient reasons for the Delhi High Courts’ refusal of the appellant’s bail application due to high profiles of the allegations and the evidence?
Whether the position given to any woman under Section 45(1) of the PMLA regarding treatment of women was correctly settled by the High Court or not?
Whether it is appropriate that the prosecuted accusations of the appellant’s participation in altering evidence and exerting influence on witnesses requires further imprisonment?
Whether any observations that the Supreme Court may make could contaminate the continuing trial?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

It is submitted that the High Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the investigation was concluded and it was not required any further custody of the appellant, since the charge-sheet had already been filed.
The appellant’s counsel also pointed out that the High Court failed to address the evidence pertaining to absence of material evidence to link the appellant to the alleged offences.
The respondent’s argument was that our Constitution assigns several protections to the appellant on the basis of the gender category and hence Section 45(1) of the PMLA failed to recognize and give the appellant, a woman, the specially privileged treatment that she deserved.
The appellant’s solicitors argued on her behalf that the fact that she was a political figure and a productive member in society should have informed the bail decision.
It was to be noted that the prosecution has strongly complained of evidence tampering but has not had any evidence to back the claim.
The submission indicated that this unlawful delayed detention of the appellant deprived her the equal protection of the law right to liberty; or the right to be released on bail as it is provided and refused as an exception.
Many people argued that any comment that the Supreme Court may say in the course of the bail application could influence the substantial case.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

The respondent countered that the appellant played a major role in the alleged money laundering conspiracy as seen from the statements of the witnesses and other material retrieved from the case.
The common argument for custody was grounded in the fact that the appellant was instrumental in tampering with evidence and coercion of witnesses, meaning that the only way to maintain investigative purity was to continue the appellant’s custody.
In order to support its argument, the prosecution argued that because the matter alleged is so serious and punishable according to the law this is sufficient grounds not to grant bail owing to the offences charged.
The respondent herein submitted that indeed the High Court exercised the provisions of the PMLA in proper manner by hearing the evidences against the appellant, this by emphasizing that being a woman the appellant cannot be shielded from allegations of criminal activities.
This was highlighted as a reason for detaining the appellant for a long time because the matter was highly charged, and seemed to entail lengthy proceedings involving, numerous witnesses, and huge documentation.
The risk that the appellant will tamper with the evidence or influence other witnesses if granted bail was also as key concern of the respondent in the trial.
From this we see that the prosecution had suggested that the observation made by the High Court was made as a result of the ad exhaustion process was done independently and objectively, and the observations that it made were strictly to ensure that it squeaky clean in the handling of the judicial process.

JUDGEMENT

Delhi High Court refusing bail with regard to the case as presented by the appellant before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court observed that, in fact, she has been in custody from July 19 for five months and stated that investigation is over in so far as the charge-sheet has been filed in one case and complain in the other case. The Court made a lot of focus on the fact that it is the general rule for a person to be released on bail, while it is the rarity for a person to be refused a bail, especially if that person has been remanded in custody for a long time.

The judgment looked to the special provisions for women given under Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act. According to the Court, this was wrong, since the High Court had misread these provisions as only covering the “vulnerable women.” The Constitutional Supreme court was quite clear to point out that the statute in question GW ensures special protection for women is not limited to women with perceived vulnerability. It was thus considered to have been misinterpreted which the High Court failed to do hence denying bail.

The Court also wanted the political status of the appellant and the contributions made by the appellant to society to play a role in the bail consideration. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court’s direction, admitting Kavitha to bail with conditions, which prohibited her from influencing or influencing any way the witnesses or the evidence in the case, surrendered her passport and directed her to appear regularly at the trial court.

The judgment respects the provisions and limitations of Indian Constitution under which every citizen has the right to liberty under Article 21 while it also reminded the need for not transforming remand custody into another form of punishment for a suspect without giving him/her a trial. The Court intended to maintain reasonable fairness in the Court by realizing that such big cases are not easily solved.

ANALYSIS

The case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement offers an important analysis of bail decisions under the constitutionality of the PMLA act. The arguments of the court focused specifically on the prime directive that says that bail should be granted and that pretrial detention should be the exception. This is in line with the earlier decisions, inter alia in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement where the court reaffirmed the tests laid down in the constitution for the violation of the right to liberty under Article 21.

One major question that formed part of the judgment was the invocation of Section 45(1) of the PMLA which gives women a special protection. Supreme Court made it clear that provision is intended to helpful for all women and the gender does not matter whether they fall in the vulnerable category or not. This interpretation is not dissimilar to sentiments prior decision which includes that of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where the Court had opined that woman should also be treated with decency in a criminal trial as well.

Furthermore, the Court also looks into the appellant’s political status and his contributions to society which points to the fact that, the background of an accused should be looked into when granting bail especially if he is a ‘high-profile personality’. Such acknowledgment corresponds to the general precepts of fairness and justice towards the legal proceeding.

This decision also exhaustively dismissed all the arguments advanced by the prosecution with regard to witness tampering, and the apprehension of the accused individuals flying away with the remaining cash, as these, again, can only be argued on the basis of credible evidence. This emphasis on evidentiary standards supports the legal adage that bail cannot be denied on the basis of mere complaints or accusations against the suspect, which are yet to be proven.

Thus, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kalvakuntla Kavitha case making the right of accused persons in the country facing serious charges is an affirmation of their rights reaffirmed while at the same time pointing to the need for a cautious approach while dealing with the bail application within the laid down laws, the PMLA in this case.

CONCLUSION

The judgement in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Consequently, Directorate of Enforcement substantially strengthens the principles of bail judicious in relation to PMLA framework. The Courts stressed that the principle of ‘Bail’ is a General Rule while ‘Remand’ is the exception based on which Article 21 of the Constitution stands. The judgment rather robustly dealt with a misinterpretation of Section 45(1) of PMLA stating that the bail condition was special for women that applied across the board and not confined to, women who were considered vulnerable. This interpretation has to do with the previous judgments given by the Supreme Court, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, where their right of liberty and the principle of innocence again were recalled.

The Court also recognised the appellant as a political person and a community leader, it dawned on the court that there is need to take into consideration the character of an accused person especially when he is influential personality. In addition, the quashing of the prosecution’s apprehension on witness tampering or flight risk spelled out the need for substantive proofs in such decisions.

Finally, this judgment not only safeguards the rights of people who are against them serious charges but also provides equal concern with reference to the procedural justice. It is important to remember that the legal process is about as partisan as one can get while trying to fight corporate factions that endanger people’s lives while maintaining principles of liberty and due process in a country.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Vedansh Raj student of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.