ED arrests BRS MLC K Kavitha in Delhi liquor policy case on charges of money laundering

The ED has examined her in the past a few times since its first questioning of her on 11 March, 2023.

The action of the ED and the Income Tax department took place a day ahead of the Election Commission preparing to release the schedule for general elections for the Lok Sabha and some state assemblies.

Sources said that about 10 officials of both the ED and the I-T Department reached her residence in Hyderabad and began conducting searches after preventing anyone from entering the premises.

The two central agencies also reportedly ensured the deployment of a large posse of policemen to prevent any trouble in light of the searches.

AAP leader Manish Sisodia, who also figured in the case, was arrested in February 2023. He has not been granted bail in the case so far, and has since been languishing in jail.

Also Read: BRS MLC Kavitha puts onus of her Lok Sabha poll contest on ‘boss’

The arrest

According to the official arrest documents, copies of which South First has seen, Kavitha was formally arrested at 5.20 pm on Friday.

The arrest order said ED Assistant Director Jogender arrested Kavitha “in exercise of the power conferred upon me under sub section (1) of section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [sic]”.

It added: “A copy of the grounds of arrest (containing 14 pages) have been served upon her. ”

Meanwhile, Kavitha’s brother and BRS working president KT Rama Rao raised objections about her arrest.

He asked how the ED could arrest Kavitha without a transit warrant, and also warned of legal repercussions.

KT Rama Rao questions the ED officer, asking how they can arrest #Kavitha without a transit warrant, especially after committing to the Supreme Court.

He warns that officials violating their undertaking will have legal repercussions.@KTRBRS also emphasizes that it was all… pic.twitter.com/XfSCK4d0C4

— South First (@TheSouthfirst) March 15, 2024

The case

The case against Kavitha, who is the daughter of BRS chief and former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao, is that she was among those who controlled the so-called “South Group”.

This South Group is alleged to have paid ₹100 crore in kickbacks to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) representative Vijay Nair for favouring the group’s members in the framing of the liquor policy of the Delhi government.

Kavitha has been dodging appearing before the ED despite summonses. She earlier filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the ED, claiming that it was asking her to appear before it despite the CrPC specially exempting women from being called to the investigation agencies’ offices.

She contended that the ED — or for that matter the CBI — should give her the choice of the place where she could be questioned. The first hearing on her petition took place in March 2023.

Her petition came up for hearing after several adjournments on Friday, 15 March, but it was again postponed to 19 March.

She has also petitioned the court to direct the ED against taking any coercive action against her pending disposal of her petition.

Also Read: Kavitha questions state govt move to get Priyanka Gandhi to launch scheme

The CBI action

On the other hand, the CBI recently asked Kavitha to appear at its office in Delhi on 26 February in connection with her role in the liquor scam, but she asked the probe agency to withdraw the notice because it was issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC.

She wanted the notice revoked or withdrawn as it was sent under Section 41A of CrPC. She recalled she was examined under Section 160 of the CrPC at her residence in December 2022.

A notice under Section 41A is issued when reasonable suspicion exists about the involvement of a person in the perpetration of a crime, but Section 160 of the CrPC deals with summoning one as a witness for recording their statement.

In her letter, she also cited her public engagements, besides the need for her to be present in the state because of the approaching Lok Sabha elections.

She also said the case was sub-judice as her petition was before a court of law for adjudication. She, however, offered to appear virtually should the investigation agency need any information from her.

(Edited by Arkadev Ghoshal)