Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved its judgement on the anticipatory bail application moved by Naidu in the Fibrenet case.
Published Oct 05, 2023 | 7:55 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 05, 2023 | 8:12 PM
Chandrababu Naidu being taken for a medical exam before being taken to an ACB court. (Supplied)
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court in Vijayawada, on Thursday, 5 October, extended TDP chief and former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu’s judicial remand till 19 October.
He was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) in the multi-crore Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) scam on 9 September.
The ACB court issued the orders after the Rajamahendravaram central prison authorities produced Naidu virtually before the court after the expiry of his judicial custody on Thursday. The court issued orders after the CID filed a memo seeking the extension of his judicial custody.
The court adjourned to Friday the hearing on Naidu’s bail petitions and the one moved by the CID for his custody to interrogate him further in the APSSDC scam.
Naidu was represented in the court by Supreme Court lawyer Pramod Kumar Dubey and the CID by additional advocate general Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy.
Sudhakar Reddy submitted statements showing the transfer of money to the TDP’s bank accounts from shell companies after funds were transferred to them from APSSDC.
He said ₹27 crore was transferred to the TDP bank account. He also submitted emails exchanged between the receiver and the company that credited the amount.
He argued that there was a variance between the Cabinet decision and the MoU signed later for the skill development project, and that Naidu was responsible for the lapses in the MoU.
He said there was a need for the CID to question Naidu on a few other financial transactions related to the scam and requested his custody for further questioning.
Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved its judgment on the anticipatory bail application moved by Naidu in the Fibernet case.
Sidharth Luthra and Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Naidu, argued for anticipatory bail while Advocate General Sriram argued against granting relief.
Naidu’s counsels maintained that it was unfair to make Naidu responsible for the implementation of policy decisions taken by him.
They argued that the Fibrenet case was registered against Naidu out of political spite. They said that even though the case was registered two years ago, his name was included recently. In the two-year period that has gone by, Naidu was never served any notice.
The advocate general insisted that just because Naidu’s name did not figure in the initial inquiry it did not mean that he had no role in it.
After a thorough investigation, it had come to their notice that there was evidence against him, he said.
Sriram added that entrusting the Fibrenet project to Terasoft took place under the full knowledge of Naidu and therefore he did not deserve anticipatory bail.
Arguments took place on the anticipatory bail petition on Wednesday.
During the hearing, Naidu’s counsels held he was not a member of either the technical committee or tender awarding committee.
They said that irregularities may have taken place in the implementation of a policy decision for which Naidu could not be held responsible. They said that the state government wanted to keep Naidu in jail, as he was a political adversary of the ruling YSRCP.
