Anticipatory bail should be granted based on reasonable grounds and exceptional circumstances, and the fears of the petitioner must be rooted in objective facts.

ORDER :

1. This Petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petition invoking the provision of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest in connection with an unregistered Crime on the file of C.I.D., Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Mangalagiri, for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 read with Section 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as 'I.P.C.') and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to as 'P.C. Act').

2. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that:

i. The Petitioner herein is arrayed as accused in an unregistered crime on the file of C.I.D., Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, for the offences mentioned above in the scam relating to Andhra Pradesh Township and Infrastructure Development Corporation (“AP TIDCO”).

ii. On perusal of the news report, briefing and press conferences and consequent to the fact that an ongoing investigation is registered against the alleged scam, the petitioner/accused and the respondent have issued notices to the other accused for investigation. Still, the respondent has reported that the other accused have absconded; the Petitioner is also avoiding the investigation.

iii. In Crime No.29 of 2021, the Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail upon being apprehended. In the said Crime, A. 20 was arrested without being himself for investigation as he did not answer the questions that would corroborate the story of fraud built by the State Police department; there exists an imminent threat of arrest upon the petitioner/accused.

iv. Mr Chandra Babu Naidu was arrested on 09.09.2023 by the respondent Police. After the arrest, a remand report was filed by the respondent Police. A reference was made to an investigation into the AP TIDCO scam, and the name of the Petitioner was also written as a conspirator. The present Government is misusing A huge public fund for personal vendetta and settling previous scores. There is no check and balance as it is the vendetta of the highest executive of the State.

v. The information unearthed subsequently suggested that the A.P. Township and Infrastructure Development (TIDCO) may have inflated the construction costs. The Petitioner was questioned on the involvement in the Crime with one Manoj Vasudevan, to which the Petitioner denied and also submitted the statement given by the Petitioner to the Income Tax authority where there is no whisper of the present work contract, with this fact, the Petitioner is being arrayed as a conspirator in the alleged Crime. His name is being falsely published in the news report to create an envious environment where the Petitioner is the direct source, and the single-point contract is with the former Chief Minister and his son. In contrast, the Petitioner has never met directly or indirectly with any of them.

vi. The Petitioner has never done any work relating to the work of AP TIDCO and is not associated with the Shapoorji Pallonji or any transactions related to this work order. There are many individuals doing contract work for big corporations like Shapoorji Pallonji, and it cannot be said that everyone who is associated or once worked with Shapoorji Pallonji is also a conspirator in the alleged AP TIDCO scam. The case of the Respondent Police is nothing but their figment of imagination, and all the allegations are based on the statement of Manoj Vasudevan given before Income Tax authorities alone and the Police neither placed any corroborative evidence on record nor placed any direct evidence to establish prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. The apprehension of the Petitioner of being arrested is more apparent from the remand report of Mr Chandra Babu Naidu in Crime No.29 of 2021 filed by the respondent, wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner is a conspirator in the scam.

3. In its counter, the