Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail of Chandrababu Naidu in IRR Alignment Scam Case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the anticipatory bail granted to former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in connection with the alleged Inner Ring Road (IRR) alignment scam. The court dismissed the state government's appeal challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on January 10.

What are the accusations against Chandrababu Naidu? 

Chandrababu Naidu, already out on bail in the skill development scam and protected from arrest in the FibreNet scam, faced accusations related to awarding contracts for the preparation of the master plan for the capital city and region during his tenure from 2014 to 2019. 

The case, dubbed the IRR alignment scam, alleged that Chandrababu Naidu manipulated the IRR alignment to benefit associates.

The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, referencing a similar case from November 7, 2022, where the state's appeals were dismissed, decided not to issue notice in the present matter. 

The court clarified that observations made in the high court order would not hinder the ongoing investigation.

The state government, represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, argued that the high court went into the merits of the case incorrectly. 

Kumar claimed that Naidu, being the former CM, was influencing the investigation, citing instances of his associates absconding and alleged threats to officials by Naidu's son and associates.

The court, while disposing of the appeal, emphasized that the HC order's observations would not impact the investigation. It granted the investigating agency the liberty to proceed uninfluenced and stated that if Naidu refused to cooperate, the state could seek cancellation of bail.

Addressing the issue of whether the case overlapped with the question of prior sanction, the bench referred to a split verdict on January 16. The matter was referred to a three-judge bench by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to resolve the differing opinions on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Naidu, pointed out a previous order related to another accused, Ponguru Narayana, emphasizing that if the state appeal related to the same FIR had been dismissed, the present appeal should not be entertained.

The bench concurred, stating, "If already the state appeal related to the same FIR has been dismissed, why shouldn’t we follow that order. We will not entertain this appeal."