ACB court admits PT warrant application by CID for custody of Naidu in Fibernet scam case

The counsel appearing for the CID, which is investigating the case, argued that Chandrababu Naidu be presented in court on Monday between 10 am and 5 pm.

Related: Naidu gets minor relief in IRR case; Lokesh grilled for 2nd day

The case

The charge against Naidu is that he resorted to financial irregularities in the implementation of the Fibernet project when he was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh.

Under this project, works valued at Rs.333 crore were taken up in the first phase, of which misappropriation of Rs.115 crore had taken place.

The total value of the project was ₹2,000 crore. The CID said that Terasoft, promoted by Vemuri Harikrishna — who is close to Chandrababu Naidu — and the TDP chief’s son Lokesh was given the work order.

The CID accused Naidu of bending all rules in awarding the contract to Terasoft.

The prosecution argued that Naidu’s name was included in the case after his role in the scam was established in the investigation done by the police.

It reminded the court that the Enforcement Directorate had suspected that money laundering took place in the scam.

The prosecution explained how the scam took place in the implementation of the project.

Secular public prosecutor Vivekanada alleged that Vemuri Harikrishna, who was the director of the AP e-Governance Council, was appointed a member of the technical evaluation committee constituted to finalise the tenders for the project.

He argued that floodgates for corruption were opened by awarding the work to Terasoft, which had been blacklisted in the past. He said that ₹114 crore was diverted into 10 bank accounts of several companies.

No respite for Naidu: AP High Court dismisses his bail pleas in 3 cases

Other arguments

Later on, arguments took place on call data records petition. Senior Advocate Dammalapati Rama Rao, representing Naidu, tried to fix the CID stating though they had taken his petitioner into custody at 11 pm on 8 September at Nandyal, it was shown as having happened at 6 am on 9 September.

Therefore, he argued, the call data of the investigating officer (IO) and other officers who were present at the time of the arrest at Nandayal should be preserved.

Special Public Prosecutor Y Vivekananda submitted that there was no provision under Section 167 (1) CrPC to seek call data, and therefore the petition was not maintainable.

As Naidu was produced before the court within 24 hours of his arrest, it was not an illegal detention, he said.

He also argued that if the call data petition was allowed, it would hurt the morale and privacy of the officers. The officers needed immunity, he said.

In another context, an exchange of words took place between Dammalapati Rama Rao and the judge. The judge, who appeared hurt, said court proceedings could be conducted only when everyone respected each other.

Related: ACB court extends judicial remand of Naidu till 19 October

Bail plea heard

Meanwhile, the AP High Court, after hearing the arguments on Naidu’s bail petition in the skill development scam, adjourned the case to 17 October.

Naidu challenged the ACB court’s direction against his bail in the case. The high court asked the prosecution to file its counter.

Meanwhile, the AP High Court heard arguments on the petition filed by Chandrababu Naidu for anticipatory bail in the Angallu violence case and reserved the judgement for Friday.

The prosecution argued that Chandrababu Naidu had incited violence in Angallu, a village in the Annamaya district in Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August.

The prosecution held that it had evidence to show Naidu inciting violence in the village. It handed over a storage device to the court which it said contained evidence of how Naidu provoked violence in the village, and argued that he should not be given anticipatory bail.

The high court also heard arguments on the petition filed by TDP general secretary Nara Lokesh seeking anticipatory bail in the skill development scam case, which it dismissed after the CID said it had not listed him as an accused in the case.

The CID said if necessary, Lokesh would be examined under Section 41 A of the CrPC.