VIJAYAWADA: In a setback to TDP supremo N Chandrababu Naidu, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed his pleas, seeking anticipatory bail in cases pertaining to the AP Fibernet project, Amaravati Inner Ring Road and Angallu violence.
The former chief minister did not get any relief in the AP State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) case, too, as the Special ACB Court in Vijayawada dismissed his bail petition. The court also rejected the plea of the APCID seeking Naidu’s custody for questioning in the Rs 371-crore scam.
On the anticipatory bail plea in the Fibernet case, Naidu’s counsel argued that though the crime was registered on September 9, 2021, police made no attempt to summon the TDP leader for investigation till his arrest in the APSSDC case on September 9, 2023.
The council said Naidu was added as accused number 25 in the case only after his arrest, indicating motivated timing and mala fide intent on the part of the probe agency. Arguing that the allegations were aimed at the other accused in the case, Naidu’s counsels pointed out that even according to the APCID, the investigation had revealed a deposit of money into the bank accounts of the other accused. There is no basis for the prosecution to believe Naidu to be the end beneficiary of the flow of money, they contended.
On the other hand, Advocate General S Sriram said the statements of the then secretary (energy), P Ajay Jain, director-cum-special secretary (Civil Supplies) under CrPC Section 164, along with the statement of Partner GovTech, M/s. PWC Ltd Azizur Rahman confirmed Naidu’s role in allocating the tenders at exaggerated rates by fabricating the detailed project reports (DPR) from inception.
‘Grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner is not warranted’
Dismissing Naidu’s plea, Justice K Suresh Reddy observed, “This court does not see any merit in the contention regarding motivated timing. In the circumstances and since the larger interest of the public or State also needs to be looked at in terms of the gravity, and not only in terms of the penalty prescribed for the offence, and having regard to the gravity of the offence which pertains to the allegation of causing of pecuniary advantage of about `114.53 crores and consequential loss to the State Exchequer, with the alleged connivance of the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is not warranted at this stage, more so as the trail of money is yet to be investigated, and to see that the investigation is not frustrated.”
In the other two cases - IRR and Angallu violence - Naidu’s counsel argued that since the petitioner has already been remanded to judicial custody in one crime (APSSDC case), he should be deemed to have been in judicial custody in the present crime also, in which he is figured as an accused, for the purpose of enabling him to avail bail under CrPC Section 439. The same was objected to by the CID.
Dismissing both the anticipatory bail petitions, the judge, who relied on various court judgements on the aspect of deemed custody, opined that the grounds raised by both sides on the merits of the matter as to the entitlement of the petitioner to regular bail or otherwise, need not be delved into.
Petitions of Naidu & CID dismissed
Meanwhile, the Special ACB court dismissed Naidu’s petition seeking bail in skill corporation scam and APCID’s plea for custody of the TDP chief for further investigation into the case. The 73-year-old was arrested on September 9 and sent to judicial remand on the next day. He has been lodged at the Rajamahendravaram Central Prison.
Counsels on both sides presented their arguments before ACB court judge BSV Himabindu last week. The arguments continued for three days and the orders were reserved for Monday. While additional advocate general (AAG) Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy and special public prosecutor Y N Vivekananda represented the CID, Supreme Court lawyer Pramod Kumar Dubey argued on behalf of the TDP chief.
Naidu’s counsel informed the court that the decision on approval of the Siemens project was taken after it was placed before the State Cabinet and that the funds were released after the senior officials of the Finance Department studied it. AAG Sudhakar Reddy sought dismissal of the bail petition stating that there are high chance of Naidu influencing the witnesses.
SC ON SEC 17A OF PC ACT
While hearing Naidu’s Special Leave Petition seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in the skill corporation case, the Supreme Court asked if the court could adopt an interpretation of Section 17A of PC Act, 1988, which will defeat the objectives of the Act
4 more added to IRR case
The APCID submitted a memo to the ACB court, adding the names of Ramadevi, wife of former minister P Narayana, Sambasiva Rao, relative of Ramadevi, Prameela and Avula Manishankar in the Amaravati Inner Ring road case. They were charged under various sections of IPC