The court, which took up his interim bail application, adjourned the hearing, citing Naidu's pending quash petition before the AP High Court.
Published Sep 15, 2023 | 3:44 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 15, 2023 | 3:44 PM
TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu being served notice of arrest at Nandyal. (X)
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court in Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh on Friday, 15 September, adjourned the hearing of the interim bail petition filed by former chief minister and TDP supremo N Chandrababu Naidu to 19 September.
Naidu, who was arrested in what has come to be known as the skill development scam case on 9 September from Nandyal while he was there to campaign for his party, was produced in the ACB Court the following day. The court remanded him in judicial custody for 14 days.
The ACB Court, which took up his interim bail application, adjourned the hearing, citing Naidu’s pending quash petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court believed that any hearing on the interim bail petition might influence the quash petition, in which Naidu had challenged his arrest.
Also, the court adjourned the hearing on a regular bail petition to the same date and directed the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) to file its counters by the time both petitions came up for hearing.
The CID, opposing Naidu’s interim bail petition, argued that it should not be considered by the court. The CID’s counsel contended that a person arrested with evidence of involvement in a crime could not be granted interim bail.
Naidu’s counsel, however, argued that interim bail could be granted to an accused and cited Supreme Court judgements to support his argument.
The CID then contended that if the court decided to hear Naidu’s petition for interim bail, it should grant time until 4 pm, when the additional advocate general would appear before it to oppose the bail application.
Subsequently, the court adjourned both petitions, the bail and the interim bail, to 19 September and asked the CID to file its counter by that date.
In his interim bail application, Naidu stated that there was no mention of his name in the complaint filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) chairman with the CID. He questioned the reason behind including his name in the case, without a clear explanation from the CID.
Naidu also pointed out that the CID did not specify when they had listed his name in the FIR and why he was designated as A1 in the case.
He argued that the CID did not provide any additional evidence justifying his listing as A1 and alleged that he was being prosecuted by the CID at the behest of the incumbent chief minister, who he believed, was acting out of spite against him.
Naidu mentioned that the CID had brought charges against him 22 months after the case was registered. He contended that all the statements listed in the remand report were recorded prior to 2022, and despite lacking additional evidence, the CID arrested him.
He said that those whose depositions were recorded by the CID did not state that he had influenced their actions in the execution of the skill development project.
Naidu held that he deserved bail, as the CID had not obtained the consent of the Governor, as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before arresting him.
