Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra Pradesh Plea Against Chandrababu Naidu's Anticipatory Bail In IRR Alignment 'Scam'

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 29) refused to entertain a petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the high court granting anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister and Telegu Desam Party (TDP) President N Chandrababu Naidu in the Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam case.A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard the state's special leave petition briefly before disposing it of today. Right at the outset of the hearing, Justice Khanna asked whether the case was related to the 'difference of opinion' matter. "Does the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act arise in this case as well? Allegations pertain to the period 2014...But enquiry was after that? If suppose Section 17A applies, then the non-procurement of prior sanction would be an issue."When Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the state government, argued that there were Indian Penal Code charges, including that of cheating under Section 420, against the senior politician, Justice Khanna asked, "How is Section 420 offence made out? No no, Section 420 will be a little difficult for you to make out..."Although the bench was initially inclined to issue notice, after Naidu's lawyer, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, informed the bench that the state government's plea against the anticipatory bail granted to co-accused persons in the case had been dismissed by the top court, Justice Khanna said, "Why should we not follow this order? Same allegation, same FIR, same set of facts. Mr Kumar, if an SLP in one case has been dismissed then we should not be entertaining this."Ultimately, the bench pronounced -"Our attention is drawn to an November 2022 order in a special leave petition in the case of co-accused in FIR no. 16 of 2022. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present special leave petition and same is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the other SLP. We however clarify that observations made in impugned order would not affect the investigation and the investigating agency would be free to investigate, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order of the high court. Further in the event the respondent do not cooperate with the investigating agency, the petitioner would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the courts below."BackgroundNara Chandrababu Naidu, former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh and TDP supremo, has been accused of corrupt practices in the formulation of the Master Plan for Amaravati, the capital of the state, and the alignment of an IRR, purportedly designed to benefit entities and individuals associated with him. The charges, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, pertain to the years 2014-2019 when Naidu held office. It has been alleged that Naidu and others abused their official positions in the selection of agencies for designing the Master Plan, IRR alignment, and Seed Capital. By favouring certain entities in a quid pro quo arrangement, financial loss has been caused to the public exchequer, it has been claimed. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Naidu on January 10, citing the lack of evidence demonstrating misappropriation of funds for personal gain.In its plea before the Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh government has challenged the high court's decision, arguing that it engaged in an in-depth analysis of the case during the anticipatory bail stage and reached factually incorrect conclusions. The state government has alleged Naidu, along with a former AP minister, orchestrated a scheme to award contracts for the Master Plan to a foreign private entity, falsely portraying it as a government-to-government agreement. Describing Naidu as the 'primary architect of the entire scam', the state government has asserted that the IRR alignment was manipulated to provide windfall gains to Naidu's close associates on a quid pro quo basis, with Naidu being the ultimate beneficiary. The special leave petition also claims that the former chief minister is attempting to obstruct the investigation. With respect to the delay in taking Naidu in custody, the Andhra Pradesh government has insisted that such delay cannot be held against him, citing the complexity of the alleged scam involving a substantial amount of documentary and oral material. Naidu faces charges in three other alleged scams—the FiberNet scam, the skill development scam, and the liquor scam. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court referred to a larger bench Naidu's plea for quashing of a first information report (FIR) in the skill development scam case. Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state crime investigation department (CID). He was in custody till he was granted interim medical bail by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in October last year. Later, he was granted regular bail by the single-judge bench.The top court is also ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra Pradesh Plea Against Chandrababu Naidu's Anticipatory Bail In IRR Alignment 'Scam'

Awstika Das

Tags