AP FiberNet Scam: High Court Says Adding Chandrababu Naidu As Accused After 2 Yrs Not 'Motivated', Investigating Such Offences Takes Time

The Andhra Pradesh High Court while dismissing former CM Chandrababu Naidu's plea for anticipatory bail in the AP Fibernet Scam case said that the action of investigating agency adding him as an accused two years after registration of the crime cannot be said to be "motivated".

Naidu's counsel Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra had argued against "motivated timing" of the action, initiated only a week after his arrest in the Skill Development scam case.

However, Justice K. Suresh Reddy rejected the contention stating that investigation in offences of this nature consumes time. Naidu is accused of swindling Rs. 114.53 crores.

"...the prima facie material collected by the prosecution and also taking note of the stand of the prosecution that a witness, who was consultant on various parts of the project, was examined through Webex on 14.09.2023 only, this Court does not see any merit in the contention regarding motivated timing,” the bench added.

Court also said that while considering bail, it must bear in mind the larger public interest and not just the penalty prescribed for the offence.

As per prosecution, Naidu facilitated appointment of one Vemuri Hari Krishna on the tender evaluation committee despite his criminal antecedents, who later colluded with M/s Tera Software Limited, officials from Andhra Pradesh State Fibernet Limited (APSFL) and other government officials to ensure that the tender worth 321 crores for A.P. Fiber Grid Phase-I was awarded to M/s Tera Software, though it lacked necessary qualifications.

A crime was registered in 2021 by CID Police Station at Amravati and when investigation was conducted it was alleged that Naidu had a key role in facilitating the crime. Since Naidu was arrested in Skill development scam, prosecution moved a petition under section 263 CrPC for the issuance of Transit warrant.

Luthra argued that adding Naidu's name at such a belated stage would show political motivation.

Advocate General on the other hand argued that Naidu was arrayed as an accused after examination of Azizur Rahman, partner in GovTech M/s Price Waterhouse Cooper Pvt. Lmt. who's deposition demonstrated Naidu's "connivance" in facilitating award of contract to M/s. Tera Software Limited and knocking away the bid with "unreasonably high rates" by fabricating the Detailed Project Reports from the inception.

The said examination after multiple attempts could be conducted on 14 September through WebEx, which would explain the delay in Naidu being arrayed as an accused, AG submitted.

It was further pointed that M/s Tera was blacklisted back in 2015 on the ground of providing faulty material and shoddy performance by A.P. Technology Services Limited. However, coincidentally, just a day before the last date for submitting applications for the tender, M/s Tera was de-blacklisted and it is alleged that Naidu personally monitored the de-blacklisting.

Prosecution stated that when a managing director of Infrastructure Corporation of AP Limited raised concerns about the dubious nature of M/s Terra, he was transferred by the General Administration Department, headed by none other than Naidu.

Luthra argued there was no money link that could be traced back to Naidu and anyhow since most of the evidence relied on by the prosecution was documentary, a 72 year old man could not be capable of corrupting evidence.

Justice Reddy while dismissing the anticipatory bail application held,

"In the circumstances and since the larger interest of the public or State also needs to be looked at in terms of the gravity, and not only in terms of the penalty prescribed for the offence, and having regard to the gravity of the offence which pertains to the allegation of causing of pecuniary advantage of about Rs.114.53 crores to A3 and consequential loss to the State Exchequer, with the alleged connivance of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is not warranted at this stage, more so, when the trail of money is yet to be investigated, and to see that the investigation is not frustrated.

Case Title: N. Chandrababu Naidu v. State of AP

Counsel for petitioner: Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Counsel, assisted by Kumar Vaibhaw, Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Ayush Shrivastava, Ginjupalli Subba Rao and S. Pranathi

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate General, APHC.

Case no.: CrlP 7497 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order