Andhra Pradesh High Court dismisses bail pleas of N Chandrababu Naidu in three corruption cases

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday rejected bail petitions filed by former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in three separate cases filed against him by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the State Police [Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of AP]..Naidu sought regular bail in the Angallu and Inner Ring Road scam cases, and filed an anticipatory bail application in the Fibernet scam case.While dismissing the bail plea in the Inner Ring Road case, the Court observed that Naidu's judicial custody in the skill development scam case cannot be deemed to be judicial custody in another case filed against him..Justice K Suresh Reddy observed that the cases are distinct, stemming from separate transactions, each involving different investigating officers, witnesses and evidence collection methods."The said cases registered against the petitioner are totally different from each other, they arise out of different transactions, the investigation to be conducted by the respective investigating officers is also different from one another, and the witnesses to be examined and the evidence to be collected are also different," the order stated..In the Inner Ring Road case, Naidu was accused of engaging in corrupt practices during the development of the master plan for the capital city of Amravati, including the alignment of the Inner Ring Road. These actions were allegedly intended to favour specific individuals and entities linked to him.The former CM filed a regular bail plea contending that he is considered to be in custody from the time of his arrest in the skill development scam case.Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra representing Naidu conceded that since he was already in judicial remand, he should not be allowed to file an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Instead, he asserted that the Court should assess the bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC..The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Naidu previous judicial custody in one of the mentioned cases doesn't extend to the Inner Ring Road case and, therefore, it does not authorize him to apply for regular bail in the current case, in which he hasn't been arrested or remanded to judicial custody."Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, which states that in a case arising out of different transaction and different occurrence, the accused must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then order of the Magistrate be obtained for detention in police custody be obtained, would be squarely applicable and the judicial custody which the petitioner has been undergoing in respect of one of the above crimes cannot be deemed to be his judicial custody in the present crime also, entitling him to seek regular bail in the present crime, in which he is not arrested and remanded to judicial custody," the order stated..The Court also rejected the contention that there was deliberate negligence on the part of the police in taking steps to arrest though the case was registered last year."The petitioner, having slept over his right of applying for an anticipatory bail, now cannot throw the blame on the prosecuting agencies saying that there is deliberate negligence on their part, particularly, when the cases registered against the petitioner are arising out of different offences and transactions. The contention that there is deliberate negligence on the part of the police in showing the arrest of the petitioner in the present crime immediately after his arrest in the other crime, also does not merit acceptance, in view of the stand taken by the State that a petition under Section 267 Cr.P.C. was filed for production of the petitioner before the Court in relation to the present crime on the very next day of the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.29 of 2021.".Further, Luthra urged the Court to examine the possibility of granting anticipatory bail in case the arguments presented for regular bail failed to convince the Bench.The Court rejected this suggestion as well and observed,"...the consideration to be undertaken for grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused is different from that of the consideration that the Court undertakes in case of plea of regular bail. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances, this Court sees no ground to undertake the exercise of different consideration than what was required to be undertaken.".The bail plea in the Angallu case was dismissed on similar grounds.In the Fibernet scam case, the Court rejected the argument that the case was a motivated one. Given the gravity of the offence, which allegedly resulted in the loss of ₹114 crore to the State exchequer, as well as the fact that the money trail was yet to be investigated, the Court rejected the former CM's anticipatory bail plea..In the Inner Ring Road case, along with Luthra, Senior Advocates Dammalapati Srinivas and Pramod Kumar Dubey, assisted by Advocates Anmol Kheta, Aditi, Satyam Sharma, Ginjupalli Subba Rao, Lakshmi Narayana, S Pranathi and G Basaveswara Rao appeared for Naidu.Advocate General Subrahmanyam Sriram represented the State government.In the Angallu case, Senior Advocate Posani Venkateswarlu and Advocate Posani Akash appeared for Naidu.In the Fibernet scam case, Luthra and Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, along with Advocates Kumar Vaibhaw, Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Ayush Shrivastava, Ginjupalli Subba Rao and S Pranathi appeared for Naidu..[Read Orders]