The Supreme Court on October 20 said it would consider the plea for anticipatory bail filed by the former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, N. Chandrababu Naidu, in the FiberNet scam case only after pronouncing its judgment in a separate petition he had filed seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him in the skill development scam case.
The top court had reserved its judgment in the skill development case on October 17.
The Bench, headed by Justice Aniruddha Bose, who is hearing both the petitions, listed the FiberNet case on November 8.
The Court said the State, in the meanwhile, should stick to its oral undertaking not to arrest Mr. Naidu, who is already in remand in the skill development case, in the FiberNet case.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar and advocate Mahfooz A. Nazki, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, said that Mr. Naidu was already in custody and there was “no question of further arrest.” Even otherwise, he would only be merely continuing in remand in both the cases, they said.
Editorial | Probe and probity: On the evolution of A.P. State Skill Development Corporation scam case
‘Complete misinterpretation of law’
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Mr. Naidu, said the submission made was a “complete misinterpretation of law.”
“He (Mr. Naidu) has been in their custody since his arrest on September 9. They have not touched him till now. Why do they suddenly want to arrest and question him?” Mr. Luthra voiced his suspicion that the registration of cases was politically motivated and instances of “regime revenge.”
In the FiberNet case, Mr. Naidu is accused of tender manipulation by allotting works worth the ₹330 crore in the first phase to a favoured company, causing loss to the public exchequer.
The State alleged that Mr. Naidu used his “influence to revoke the blacklisting of M/s Terasoftware and got the contract awarded to the company by silencing the protests from other bidders.”
In both the skill development and FiberNet cases, Mr. Luthra said that Mr. Naidu had immunity under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the State did not get prior sanction before investigating him.
The senior lawyer pointed out that three accused in the case were on anticipatory bail, three others were given regular bail, and the others were not even arrested.
“Now, when the elections are round the corner, they want to arrest Mr. Naidu,” Mr. Luthra submitted.
