SC notice against Andhra HC’s order over Chandrababu Naidu’s anticipatory bail in FiberNet scam case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu against the high court's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, for Naidu, submitted before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi that the state government may arrest his client on Monday.

This petition will become infructuous on Tuesday, he said.

The bench said the court is not passing any order now.

However, the court asked whether the Andhra Pradesh government can hold the arrest.

Luthra told the bench that after his client’s arrest in the Skill Development Centre scam, the state is going after him in more cases.

“Once they arrested him in one case, they started roping him in other cases," Luthra said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, said they can ask the trial court to adjourn the hearing till Wednesday.

The bench noted that the anticipatory bail plea will not become infructuous if there is no arrest.

Rohatgi said that the instructions will be sent that there should not be an arrest on Monday.

The bench asked the state government counsel to inform the trial court that they are not arresting him till then.

"Stay your hand," the bench told Rohatgi who said, "the matter is before the court and it is not in his hands".

The bench issued notice on the plea and posted the matter for consideration on Tuesday.

"If the State wants to file a counter-affidavit, they may do so by Monday with the copy to petitioners,” the bench ordered.

The TDP leader has already been arrested on September 8 in a case related to alleged scam in setting up skill development centre on the basis of the FIR lodged on December 9, 2021.

Defending the decision to arrest him without prior sanction from the competent authority, Rohatgi said

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was born in July 2018.

"The offences are from 2015 and 2016 and as such no benefit of Section 17A can be given because it was not on the statute book. Alternatively, allegations according to FIR are such that they can never be remotely considered to be a decision, determination, or recommendation in discharge of public functions," he said.