AP High Court reserves verdict on Chandrababu bail plea
Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy said that Chandrababu violated the interim bail conditions and took part in rallies and the Telangana police also registered a case against him.
Guntur: The Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved its verdict on the bail petition of former Chief Minister and Telugu Desam Party president N. Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development scam case after hearing the arguments.
Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy for the CID, Supreme Court senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra for Chandrababu appeared in the court.
Sudhakar Reddy said that Chandrababu violated the interim bail conditions and took part in rallies and the Telangana police also registered a case against him. Currency notes of Rs.10 denomination were used to transfer the money through hawala mode to shell companies, and the phone messages of a person by name Bose had revealed this, he stated. The money reached Hyderabad through messages by Bose and Kanwelkar, he revealed.
The AAG also pointed out that Siemens company had also confirmed that the money was diverted. The then Chief Secretary in his letter had mentioned in his letter to the Finance Secretary that the then Chief Minister had sought release of Rs.270 crore, he said.
Noting that Chandrababu was an accused in several corruption cases and that the investigation in the skill development case was in a crucial state, the AAG apprehended that the former might influence the witnesses. As all are equal before law, the verdict in the present case should send a message to the society which was why Chandrababu should not be granted bail, he argued.
Luthra countered saying that Chandrababu was arrested deliberately before the elections. While hearing bail petition, there was no need to go into the details of the case, he said and wondered what they could achieve by probing the case from the year 2018. He also alleged that the CID DIG and AAG held press meets in Delhi and indulged in a false campaign which was against Advocates ethics, and felt that the police should be accountable for the people and should not act as stooges of the government.
