AP Govt Urges Supreme Court To Cancel Chandrababu Naidu's Bail In Skill Development Scam Case, Alleges His Family Threatened Officials

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was hearing the State of Andhra Pradesh's special leave petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court granting regular bail to the Telugu Desam Party president. Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state crime investigation department and was in custody till he was directed to be released on bail in October.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, claimed that the accused's family members have publicly declared their intentions to take action against government officials involved in the investigation once the TDP returns to power, terming this development 'deeply disturbing'. When Justice Trivedi expressed disinclination to consider any information not on the record, Rohatgi informed the bench that the state government had filed an interlocutory application seeking additional documents containing the statements made by Naidu's family members to be filed. 

Emphasising the seriousness of the situation, Rohatgi pressed for the cancellation of Naidu's bail. He stated that such threats should not be taken lightly, especially given the impending elections where the TDP is contesting. He argued - 

"The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against a high court order granting bail and I am showing you a circumstance which is very relevant for the cancellation of bail. The family of the accused is openly saying that when we come to power, we will take action against all these officers who have participated in the investigation and taken statements, etcetera...They have threatened that even where Section 164 statements have been made, we will take action. The benefit or liberty of bail cannot accrue to persons who are going to make such threatening statements just before the ensuing elections in which these people are a contesting party. This is very serious."

Rohatgi's plea was met with a request from Naidu's legal team, led by Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for time to file a response to the state government's allegations. The bench granted two weeks for the respondents to file their response, allowing the petitioner-state to file a rejoinder, if needed. The matter was adjourned to March 19 for the next hearing.

In November, the bench while adjourning the proceedings until after the delivery of the judgment in Naidu's plea seeking the quashing of the first information report (FIR) in this case, agreed to issue notice and seek the TDP leader's response to the Andhra Pradesh government's plea. Not only this, but the bench also directed the continuation of a bail condition enjoining Naidu from speaking about sub judice matters arising out of this case in the public domain. However, the court refused to impose the other bail condition prohibiting him from organising or participating in political rallies or meetings. These conditions were imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in an interim order, but later not extended when Naidu was granted regular bail.

Last month, Naidu's plea in the skill development case was referred to a larger bench in view of a disagreement between Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a prior sanction requirement introduced by an amendment in 2018, and its applicability to Naidu.