New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Andhra Pradesh government challenging the high court's order of January 10, 2024, granting anticipatory bail to former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu in connection with an FIR lodged in 2022 on the Inner Ring Road scam in the capital city.
A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said: “Our attention is drawn to an order dated November 7, 2022, passed in an appeal in the case of co-accused in FIR of 2022. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue a notice in the present special leave petition (SLP) and the same is dismissed…”.
During the hearing, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Naidu, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the state government, took the court through cases pending before the Supreme Court relating to Chandrababu Naidu. The bench said if the SLP has already been dismissed, then why should we entertain it?
The bench clarified that observations made in the impugned order would not affect the investigation, and added that in the event the respondent do not cooperate with the investigation agency, the petitioner would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail in the courts below.
The state government’s plea questioned the validity of the high court's order and claimed it "has not only conducted a mini-trial but has also completely erred rendering findings which are completely contrary to the record." The government said the high court has exceeded its jurisdiction, which ought not to be allowed. "The High Court's rationale regarding the delay in the arrest as a ground for granting anticipatory bail is completely misconceived," it said.
In its petition, the state government claimed the present scam is of a complicated nature involving large magnitudes of documentary and oral testimony. "The AP CID undertook a detailed investigation, and only after ascertaining the respondent's (Naidu) role herein, did they take steps for police custody. The same ought not to have been held against the State. On the contrary, it is a testimony to the objectivity of the investigating agencies," the plea filed by advocate Mahfooz A Nazki said.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
