Read Time: 06 minutes
It has been stated that while granting relief to Naidu, High Court has grossly erred in treating his case in parity with the co-accused though "he is the primary architect, as well as ultimate beneficiary"
Andhra Pradesh government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging validity of the High Court's order of January 10, 2024 allowing a plea for anticipatory bail to former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in an FIR for alleged scam in laying Inner Ring Road in the capital city.
The plea sought interim stay on the order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
High Court's judgment is prima facie, unsustainable, and ought to be set aside as it has grossly exceeded the judicially settled parameters on the jurisdiction as since the practice of detailed elaboration of evidence in bail and anticipatory bail orders has been repeatedly deprecated by the Supreme Court, the plea stated.
The High Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent, being the former Chief Minister, was taking steps to derail the investigation, it has been claimed.
It has been further claimed that the High Court failed to consider that respondent, Naidu was in charge of all decisions that were made regarding the alignment of the IRR, and deliberately and fraudulently made such decisions in a manner which would benefit private entities with whom he had quid pro quo arrangements or direct ties, and such decisions were made to the detriment of the public exchequer.
"He was both the primary architect of this fraud and its ultimate beneficiary. This amounts to criminal breach of trust by a public servant under Section 409 of the IPC, and it is a particularly serious economic offence. It is settled law that in case of grave socio economic offences (such as the present case involving corruption and embezzlement of public funds under the grab of a public project, by the erstwhile Chief Minister), denial of anticipatory bail is the norm," it stated.
The plea has also claimed the High Court has erred in failing to consider the fact that the respondent is a highly influential politician who is capable of influencing witnesses. For instance, he arranged for two of his associates who helped facilitate his illicit cash flow to abscond from India to UAE / USA after they were served with notices from APCID in connection with another crime, it alleged.
"In the present case, which is of an intricate and complicated nature, aside from documentary evidence, interrogation of the respondent as well as others involved in the crime is crucial. In the event the respondent is granted anticipatory bail, he is capable of intimidating potential witnesses, the investigating officers and co-accused, thereby impeding the investigation indefinitely," it contended.
The Andhra Pradesh CID hac registered the FIR in 2022 for offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167, 217 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act.
Cause Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Nara Chandrababu Naidu
Please Login or Register
