The Supreme Court will hear on May 7 the appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh government challenging the state high court's order granting regular bail to TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development corporation scam case.
The Andhra Pradesh government in its appeal had told the apex court that it had filed an interlocutory application, after which the SC took this into record and fixed the matter for hearing on May 7.
A two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Bela M Trivedi and also comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal, was hearing the appeal of the AP government challenging the regular bail granted to Naidu in the case.
Andhra Pradesh's Crime Investigation Department (CID) had arrested Naidu on September 9 last year. It was alleged that when Naidu was the CM of the state in 2015, there was a case of fraud involving misappropriation of funds from the SDC and Naidu had illegally made a loss to the state exchequer to the tune of Rs 300 crores.
The TDP chief had contended before the top court that the FIR (First Information Report) against him was registered without obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority in the scam case and, therefore, his arrest was illegal and malafide.
The AP government, in a hearing in the top court, had earlier said that the alleged crime against Naidu relates to a project involving the AP State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC), Siemens Industry Software (India) Pvt. Ltd and DesignTech India Private Limited for the establishment of Siemens centres of excellence and skill development in six clusters in Andhra Pradesh.
Naidu has been accused of expedited incorporation of the APSSDC by overruling objections that it required state cabinet approval. He, however, claimed innocence in the case.
It is alleged by the present AP government that Naidu had made appointments of his choice in the APSSDC to “facilitate the scam”.
The state government also alleged that Naidu entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Siemens and DesignTech without any tender process.
He also expedited release of funds for the project “before any work was done, even overruling the objections of senior officers such as the Finance Secretary”, the state government alleged in the top court.