Court grants time to CBI to reply to Kavitha's plea opposing interrogation

Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader is in judicial custody after being arrested in Delhi excise policy case

A court in Delhi on Saturday gave the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) time to file its reply on an application moved by K Kavitha opposing its order allowing the agency to question her in judicial custody in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case.

K Kavitha, leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi political party, has been in judicial custody in Tihar Jail since March 26 after she was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This afternoon, Special Judge Kaveri Baweja granted permission to the CBI to interrogate Kavitha any day next week.

In her application, Kavitha has sought to keep the order in abeyance until a copy of the application moved by the CBI is provided to her and she has been given an opportunity to file a reply.

The CBI had on Friday moved the court seeking permission to question Kavitha while she is in judicial custody.

The agency had submitted before the court that they wanted to interrogate her in connection with WhatsApp chats retrieved from the mobile phone of her chartered accountant and another accused in the scam, Butchibabu Gorantla, and some documents and phones recovered during the investigation.

Kavitha, in her application filed through her counsels, argued that the application was filed by CBI without her being informed and that the agency may not have divulged the facts.

It may have concealed, as well as, misrepresented certain facts that may have gone into the mind-making of the court, her application to the court read.
 

Representing Kavitha, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, along with advocates Nitesh Rana and Deepak Nagar, argued for maintaining status quo until they had the opportunity to present their arguments on the application.

The special public prosecutor representing the CBI sought time to file a response to Kavitha's application.

Kavitha’s lawyers urged the court to grant an interim relief of putting the execution of the order passed on Friday in abeyance. However, after hearing both parties, the court refused to grant interim relief and listed the matter for hearing on April 10.