'Not A Matter Of Routine': High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Yogesh Gupta In Andra Pradesh TIDCO Scam

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Yogesh Gupta, in the Andhra Pradesh Township and Infrastructure Development Corporation Scam.

Gupta who allegedly generated fake invoices to siphon money in the Skill Development scam had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail after news articles published in the Deccan Chronicle, Indian Express, and Saakshi Daily Telugu newspaper in September, speculated that the State Government was investigating into the alleged connections between the Amravati scam and the Skill Development Scam and in furtherance of the same had issued notices to two individuals, one of them being the petitioner.

The article briefly mentions that the IT department had interviewed Manoj Vasudev Pardasanny in 2019, a representative of Sapoorji Pallonji, an infrastructure firm that had allotted tenders for the construction of various projects in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the article speculated that the the State Government was investigating the allegation that prices were hiked in the AP TIDCO project.

Justice T. Malikarjuna Rao dismissed the petition on the grounds that the news articles were extremely ambiguous, did not define the role of the petitioner and could not make out any reasonable grounds.

"The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine, and it has to be granted when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. To consider an anticipatory bail application, the exact role of the Accused must be adequately apprehended. The Petitioner's fears are not rooted in objective facts. No material capable of examination and evaluation by the Court is regarding the alleged AP TIDCO scam. The Court cannot grant anticipatory bail without proper material and an understanding of the petitioner's role. There is no material available before Court regarding the AP TIDCO scam."

The Court also noted that the petitioner's apprehension lies against the investigation being conducted by the IT department, which has not been made a party.

"This Court finds force in the contention of the Respondent/State that the Petitioner relies mainly on the News reports and anticipates various outcomes in the AP TIDCO scam unearthed by the Income Tax Department, which is not a party to this petition. No material is placed regarding the developments of the AP TIDCO scam unearthed by the Income Tax Department."

The petitioner contended that he was arrested in relation to the Skill development scam without being investigated and the same could be done in the present case.

He further contended that in the remand report that was filed in the skill Development scam, reference was made to the AP TIDCO scam; and that he was granted anticipatory bail after his apprehension.

Yogesh maintained that he had no links to the alleged scam in question and was being dragged into the matter solely due to the deposition given by Manoj Vasudev.

The State on the other hand contended that no case had been registered in relation to the AP TIDCO scam and never did the remand report, filed in the Skill Development Scam speak about the AP TIDCO scam.

The Court was also informed that the petitioner was issued anticipatory bail in the Skill Development Scam on the condition that he would appear before the investigation authority whenever summoned, however since he failed to comply with the same, a petition had been moved before the Court for cancellation of the bail.

The State vehemently argued that not even a complaint had been registered in association with the AP TIDCO scam and that because the modus operandi and people involved in the Skill Development Scam and AP TIDCO scam are similar, the petitioner is hypothetically anticipating the various outcomes of the TIDCO scam being unearthed by the IT department, who was not even made a party to the petition.

The Bench after going through the remand report filed in the skill development scam ascertained that it had no mention of the AP TIDCO scam.

While dismissing the petition the court held:

"This Court is not supposed to pass a blanket order of anticipatory bail simply because A.22 in Cr.No.29 of 2021 was arrested without calling him for investigation; it cannot be a to file this petition that he may also be arrested in the AP TIDCO scam, even without an investigation. The Respondent/State contends that there is no case as described by the Petitioner regarding alleged misappropriation in the AP TIDCO scam; this Court is not supposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, as it is settled law that the apprehension of the applicant, who seeks anticipatory bail should be based on reasonable grounds."

Crlp 7601 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: Murthy Nagendra Sagar Babu

Counsel for State: Y.N. Vivekananda (Spl PP CID)

Click Here To Read/Download Order