E-Paper
SC upholds former Andhra CM’s anticipatory bail
The allegation is that while Naidu was the chief minster, between 2014 and 2019, he awarded a contract for preparation of master plan for the capital city and capital region
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the anticipatory bail granted to former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu in a corruption case while refusing to entertain an appeal filed by the state government challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh high court on January 10.
Naidu is already out on bail in the skill development scam, and was granted protection from arrest in connection with the alleged FibreNet corruption case. The allegation is that while he was the chief minster, between 2014 and 2019, Naidu awarded a contract for preparation of master plan for the capital city and capital region, including the inner ring road (IRR), on a nomination basis and changed the alignment of IRR to allow wrongful gains to his associates.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, while dismissing the state’s appeal, noted that the top court on November 7, 2022 dismissed a set of similar appeals filed by the state government challenging the anticipatory bail granted to other accused in the case.
Citing this case, the bench said, “In view of this position, we are not inclined to issue notice and the same is disposed in terms of the order passed by this Court on November 7, 2022.”
The state government, represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar and advocate Mahfooz A Nazki, told the court that the high court, while deciding anticipatory bail, went into merits of the case and quoted facts wrongly.
Kumar further said that, being the former CM, Naidu was influencing the investigation as two of his associates required for investigation have gone absconding. He told the court that Naidu’s office threatened officials of the AP crime investigation department (APCID) of dire consequences if the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) returns to power in the upcoming assembly elections.
The court, while disposing the state’s appeal, said, “We clarify that the observations made in the high court order will not affect the investigation and the investigation agency will be at liberty to investigate uninfluenced by the order of the high court.” The court further held that in the event Naidu refuses to cooperate with the probe, the state could move appropriate proceedings to seek cancellation of bail.
After noting that the present case related to the 2014-19 period, the bench initially asked the state whether this matter overlapped with the issue of grant of prior sanction before registering corruption cases against the TDP chief.
This issue was raised by Naidu in a writ petition filed before the top court on which a division bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi gave a split verdict on January 16. Justice Bose was of the opinion that before registering offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, APCID ought to have taken sanction of the competent authority under Section 17A of the PC Act, which safeguards public servants from prosecution for acts committed in exercise of official duty.
However, justice Trivedi said that the provision of Section 17A was to combat corruption and cannot offer protection to dishonest public servants. The judge further noted that the provision was introduced in the PC Act in 2018, while the act alleged against Naidu pertained to the period between 2014 to 2019 when he was chief minister.
The matter has been referred to Chief Justice of India (CJI) to constitute a three-judge bench on this issue.
The state informed the Court that the issue of Section 17A “may not” arise in the present matter which relates to grant of anticipatory bail. However, the Court observed, “if Section 17A applies, then it will require you to take prior sanction.”
During the heariing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Naidu, pointed out the November 7, 2022 order passed in the case of another accused, Ponguru Narayana, a former minister in Naidu’s cabinet who was also named as an accused in the same case.
The court said, “If already the state appeal related to the same FIR has been dismissed, why shouldn’t we follow that order. We will not entertain this appeal.”
