Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Nara Chandrababu Naidu – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.7894 of 2023
Decided on 10.1.2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre-arrest bail petition – Petitioner, along with others, booked under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and 217 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – While considering prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to a free, fair and complete investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of accused – It is duty of Court to exercise its jurisdiction in proper way to protect personal liberty of citizen – There cannot be presumption of guilt to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before Court – Court must thoroughly scrutinize entire available record – There is no claim by Respondent-State that Petitioner/A.1 is culpable for mentioned lapse and investigation has uncovered A.1’s role in this matter – Mere fact that previous Government belonged to a different political dispensation than current one does not warrant suspicion unless there is prima facie evidence supporting such scepticism. (Paras 12, 30, 34 and 62)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre-arrest bail petition – Petitioner, along with others, booked under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and 217 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Existence of power to arrest is one thing, justification for exercising it is quite another – Apart from power to arrest, police officers must be able to justify the reasons – No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to genuineness of allegation – Petitioner presently holds position of opposition leader and lacks direct or indirect control over concerned department – There is no reasonable apprehension that Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence – Granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner would not impede ongoing investigation – Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner/A.1. (Paras 64, 66 and 74)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER
This petitioner/A.1 has filed the present Criminal Petition invoking the provisions 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 Crime No.16 of 2022, registered at the C.I.D., Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Mangalagiri.
2. The Petitioner, along with others, stands accused in a case involving the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 34, 35, 36, 37, 166, 167 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to as ‘P.C. Act’).
3. The case against the Petitioner (A.1) and others is based on a report lodged by Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, Member of Legislative Assembly, Mangalagiri, dated 27.04.2022, and a subsequent preliminary enquiry report dated 06.05.2022, alleging corrupt and illegal activities between 2014 and 2019 by the Petitioner, the former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and certain other government officials concerning the design of the master plan for the capital city area and the alignment of Inner Ring Road and its connected arterial roads. The alleged purpose is to cause wrongful gain to specific individuals and entities connected to decision-making authorities, leading to corresponding wrongful loss to the general public and the state exchequer. Specific allegations include awarding the initial work for the master plan’s preparation to M/s. Surbana International Consultants Private Limited (later changed to M/s. Surbana Jurong Consultancy Private Limited) on a nomination basis, contrary to the prescribed procedures and guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission. Additionally, there are claims of prescribing a mandate to the bidder to align the master plan with the draft perspective plan, ensuring an increase in the value of lands belonging to Mr Lingamaneni Ramesh and M/s. Heritage Foods. These actions are alleged to be part of a quid pro quo arrangement, including the provision of illegal gratification, such as having the house of Mr Lingamaneni Ramesh on Karakatta Road, Undavalli, at the disposal of the Petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner/A.1, in brief, is that:—
(i) The Petitioner, having served as the Chief Minister for the unified State of Andhra Pradesh for over nine years, subsequently became the 1st Chief Minister for the Truncated State of Andhra Pradesh and presently holds the position of Leader of the Opposition in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The crime in question was registered on 09.05.2022, and for the past 16 months, the Petitioner has neither received any notice to appear before the Investigating Agency nor been subject to investigation. In this case, the co-accused sought anticipatory bail, granted by this Court’s Order on 06.09.2022 in Crl.P.No(s) 3811 of 2022 and batch.
(ii) The primary allegation against the Petitioner is that, based on discussions and inputs, three alignment options for the Inner Ring Road (IRR) were considered, and the Petitioner, as the then Chief Minister, directed the final alignment to derive maximum pecuniary benefit for their close associates. This allegedly led to a manifold escalation in the value of their lands, causing wrongful loss to ordinary individuals whose lands either came under IRR notification or faced developmental restrictions in the vicinity. The Prosecution does not assert that the accused’s actions defrauded specific individuals, including the Complainant. The F.I.R. contents lack the elements necessary to invoke the mentioned sections.
(iii) The Petitioner contends that the present case was registered against them for exposing the Government’s anti-people policies and the current Chief Minister’s alleged exploitation of the State’s resources. It is asserted that the registration is part of a vindictive agenda to implicate political opponents in criminal cases, aiming to harass and incarcerate
(1) Pre-arrest bail – There cannot be presumption of guilt to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before Court.(2) No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of commissio....
The Governor can exercise discretion to grant prosecutorial sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act even against a Chief Minister if the Council of Ministers' advice appears biased.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case exists, especially when allegations are politically motivated or lack corroboration.
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on vague allegations; the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable belief of imminent arrest linked to specific offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail, the delicate balance between individual liberty and the requirements of a thorough investigation, and ....
Point of law: Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes “the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibra....
The court established that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption, and that the principle of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
