E-Paper
Chandrababu Naidu moves Supreme Court to seek anticipatory bail in Fibernet case
The SC bench will also hear Chandrababu Naidu's petition to quash the FIR in the skill development scam case at 2pm.
Former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu on Friday approached the Supreme Court against Andhra Pradesh high court's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi will hear the case later in the day, reported Live Law.
The bench will also hear Naidu's petition to quash the FIR in the skill development scam case at 2pm.
In a major setback for Naidu on Monday, the Andhra Pradesh high court rejected the anticipatory bail petitions of the TDP chief in three corruption cases - the Inner Ring Road, Fiber Net, and Angallu 307 cases. All three cases are similar alleged corruption cases registered by the YSRCP-led Andhra Pradesh government against Naidu. The Angallu case is connected to the riots that took place during a political rally taken out by the TDP chief on August 4.
What is the AP Fibernet case?
The FiberNet case relates to the alleged tender manipulation in allotting a work order under Phase-1 of the AP FiberNet Project of ₹330 crore to a favoured company. The Crime Investigation Department (CID) alleged that irregularities took place from the allotting of the tender to the completion of the total project, causing a huge loss to the state exchequer.
Also read: Another warrant issued against TDP chief Naidu
According to a statement by the CM's office, Naidu gave approval for the estimates of the project without any market survey done. "He used his influence to revoke the blacklisting on M/s Terasoftware and got the contract awarded to the company by silencing the protests from other bidders,” the statement said.
On Thursday, a special court allowed CID to issue a prisoner transit (PT) warrant against Naidu in the AP FiberNet case. The special ACB court also directed the CID to produce Naidu before it on October 16. However, the court noted that any order from the top court in the interregnum would be binding on it.
However, the Court noted that any order from the Supreme Court
(With inputs from agencies)
