The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday has dismissed BRS Leader K. Kavitha’s petition for default bail, which she withdrew. Kavitha sought default bail in the Delhi Excise Policy CBI case, arguing that the CBI had not filed a complete charge sheet within the required 60 days.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue court dismissed the plea after Kavitha’s lawyer requested to withdraw it. Kavitha had also sought interim bail while her application was pending.
Her regular bail requests had been previously denied by both the trial and high courts. Kavitha was arrested by the CBI on April 11 in connection with the Excise Policy case and had earlier been detained by the Enforcement Directorate on March 15. The CBI filed a charge sheet against her on June 6, which the court has acknowledged.
In a separate case, the Delhi High Court rejected Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s challenge to his arrest by the CBI in the Excise Policy matter. The court found his arrest justified and advised him to seek relief from the trial court.
The High Court had previously reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s regular bail plea and his challenge to his arrest. During hearings, the CBI opposed the bail, labeling Kejriwal as the central figure or “sutradhar” of the case. CBI Special Counsel DP Singh presented evidence suggesting Kejriwal’s significant involvement, including his swift approval of the policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and testimonies linking him to the case.
Singh argued that while direct evidence was scarce, witness statements and testimonies pointed to Kejriwal’s involvement. He also noted that Kejriwal had sought retroactive approval for the policy from the council of ministers after the issue became public.
In response, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, described the arrest as an “insurance arrest” and emphasized the policy’s extensive inter-ministerial review process.
Singhvi argued that Kejriwal had already been granted bail in related cases and that the distinction between bail and writ petitions did not affect the case’s merits.
