Chandrababu Naidu Moves Supreme Court After Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Him Anticipatory Bail in AP FiberNet Scam Case


13 Oct 2023 3:58 AM GMT


Ongoing Enrollments:
Certificate Course in Labour Laws Certificate Course in Drafting of Pleadings Certificate Programme in Train The Trainer (TTT) PoSH Certificate course in Contract Drafting Certificate Course in HRM (Human Resource Management) Online Certificate course on RTI (English/हिंदी) Guide to setup Startup in India HR Analytics Certification Course

Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu has approached the Supreme Court against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court denying him anticipatory bail in the state FiberNet scam in the state.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi will hear this matter today. The bench will also hear his petition to quash the FIR in the skill development scam case at 2 PM today.

The Telugu Desam Party president has been accused of playing a 'key role' in the AP FiberNet scam that happened during the TDP term in the State. The state crime investigation department (CID) has accused him of exerting pressure on officials to favour a certain company that was awarded the FiberNet contract, despite its alleged lack of necessary qualifications. Naidu was recently implicated in this case that was registered back in 2021. Since his arrest in the skill development scam case, the prosecution moved a petition under Section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a transit warrant. Although the State has sought to explain the delay in Naidu's inclusion as an accused on grounds of the challenges faced in examining crucial witnesses and suspected conspirators through digital means, the former chief minister has cried foul, calling this a politically motivated decision.

This week, Naidu's plea for anticipatory bail in this case was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court, while addressing Naidu's concerns about the timing of his inclusion as an accused in the case, emphasised that the investigative process in such complex offenses naturally takes time. Justice K. Suresh Reddy maintained that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of a key witness, did not support the claim of motivated timing and underscored the necessity of considering larger public interest when deciding matters of bail, rather than merely focusing on the prescribed penalties for the offence. Justice Reddy while dismissing the anticipatory bail application held -

"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 Rs.114.53 crores to A3 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, when the trail of money is yet to be investigated, and to see that the investigation is not frustrated."

On September 9, Naidu was also arrested in connection with a skill development scam in the state, with the state crime investigation department claiming to have prima facie evidence of the former chief minister’s key role in the alleged embezzlement of around Rs 371 crore from the Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation through fictitious companies during the TDP's rule between 2014 and 2019. He is the 37th accused in a 2021 FIR related to the multi-crore scam involving the state skill development corporation. He has been custody since.

Last month, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Naidu’s plea for quashing of the first information report (FIR) in which he argued that the trial court’s order remanding him to custody did not consider that the CID had failed to obtain prior approval from the governor, as required by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, a bench of Justice K Sreenivas Reddy ruled that prior sanction from the competent authority was unnecessary for the investigation since the use of public funds, allegedly for personal gain, did not constitute an act in the discharge of official duties. The court also agreed that given the seriousness of economic offences, the investigation should not be hindered, especially at this early stage.

The Supreme Court is also currently hearing a special leave petition against this order.

%>