Former Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s quest for a relief in the skill development scam case has ended in despair once again as the ACB Special Court here dismissed his bail petition on Monday. However, the judge, B.S.V. Himabindu, also turned down the CID’s plea to allow it to take him into custody for an additional five days to extract more information on his role in the scam.
Mr. Naidu can seek remedy against the dismissal of his bail plea by challenging the ACB Court judgment in the High Court (HC).
The SLP which he filed in the Supreme Court for quashing the CID FIR and the consequential ACB Court remand order in the skill case is being heard by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi. Arguments in the apex court on Monday revolved around the applicability of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Naidu is in the Rajamahendravaram central jail on judicial remand which has been extended till October 19.
Meanwhile, the ACB Court heard arguments on the Prisoner Transit (PT) warrants issued by the CID against Mr. Naidu in the Amaravati Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment and FiberNet scam cases but no decision was taken. Hearing on these warrants is likely to resume on October 10.
Mr. Naidu’s woes in the Amaravati Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment and FiberNet scam cases in the HC continued as his anticipatory bail petitions in both cases were dismissed by Justice K. Suresh Reddy, who also rejected the former CM’s bail plea in the case related to the violence that took place at Angallu village in Annamayya district during his tour of irrigation projects in August, 2023. For relief in these cases, Mr. Naidu has to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the HC’s decision not to grant him bail on different grounds.
In the IRR case, the judge did not consider Mr. Naidu’s plea to treat his judicial remand as deemed custody, therefore, he did not delve into the issue of his entitlement to regular bail or otherwise. Regarding the FiberNet case, the judge observed that the grant of anticipatory bail was not warranted at this stage in view of the gravity of the offence and because the trail of money was yet to be investigated and the same could not be frustrated.
