The ACB court in Vijayawada, the high court in Amaravati and the Supreme Court in Delhi have adjourned the cases relating to TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu to October 4. The cases came up before the respective court and the judges posted the case for hearing in the next week.

The TDP chief filed a case in the ACB court seeking bail for him in the Skill Development Corporation scam. The court said that it would hear the case on October 4. The court also told the CID that it would hear its petition on October 4. The CID filed another petition seeking custody of Chandrababu Naidu.

The court told the judge that Naidu did not cooperate with them during the two-day custody held by them last week. The CID wanted Naidu in their custody for five days to question him. The CID also filed a PT petition against Naidu in the Amaravati inner ring road scam.

The ACB court judge told both the parties that they would hear the cases on October 4.

In the high court, the petitions filed by the advocates representing Chandrababu Naidu were also posted to the next week. TDP general secretary Nara Lokesh also filed anticipatory bail in the high court in the Amaravati inner ring road scam.

In the supreme court, the quash petition filed by Chandrababu Naidu was posted to October 4. Naidu filed the quash petition in the supreme court challenging the AP high court’s order. Naidu’s advocates also wanted the high court to direct the ACB court to stop all proceedings against Chandrababu Naidu.

Justice SVN Bhatti told the court that he was not interested in hearing Naidu’s case. Then it was shifted to the chief justice court where the court posted the case for the next hearing on October 4.

TDP supremo N Chandrababu Naidu on Saturday challenged the AP High Court order on his quash petition. The AP high court had dismissed the quash petition of Naidu challenging the judicial remand given by the ACB court.

The high court said that it was not right on the part of the judiciary to intervene in the process of investigation and hence dismissed the quash petition.

Naidu challenged the high court orders in the supreme court. The supreme court might take the suit on Monday as tomorrow is Sunday.

Meanwhile, in the AP high court, the advocates representing Chandrababu Naidu filed the bail petition. The court, on receiving the petition, rejected it and did not admit. The high court did not give any reason for its rejection.

It is to be seen what move the advocates representing Chandrababu Naidu would do in the days to come. If the AP high court’s order challenge petition is admitted, the advocates would argue the case. If the supreme court also accepts the high court decision, then the TDP advocates would have to file the bail petition in the supreme court.

Meanwhile, the CID questioning of Chandrababu Naidu in the Rajamahendravaram central jail ended on the first day. Six CID officials went to Naidu in the jail and questioned him from 9.30 am to 5 pm in the evening. The advocates of Chandrababu Naidu were allowed and the entire questioning procedure was vediographed.

Chandrababu Naidu was allowed to meet his advocates for five minutes for every one hour of questioning. The CID officials are taking Naidu’s answers on the skill development scam and other scams in which he is accused.

The AP high court on Tuesday reserved its orders on the quash petition filed by former chief minister and TDP supremo N Chandrababu Naidu.

Supreme Court senior advocates Harish Salve, Siddhartha Luthra and Siddhartha Agarwal argued for Chandrababu Naidu, while senior advocate Mukul Rahtgi, Ranjit Kumar and Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy argued for the state government and the CID.

This FIR is completely illegal, when read with the judgement in the Yaswant Sinha case rendered by the Supreme Court , in the absence of a prior approval from the competent authority, said Salve. He further said that according to 17A of PC Act, No police officer shall conduct an inquiry, enquiry or investigation on the decisions taken in discharge of duties of a public servant without a prior approval.

Salve also said that in this case, the prior approval of the governor is mandatory as the investigation is initiated against the chief minister. The CID must have seen the document dated 22 March 2016 which is a public document, before it has arrested the petitioner (Naidu). The document speaks about handing over of evaluation of the skill development project to Central Institute of Tool Design (CITD), a reputed central government organisation having expertise in the fields of mechanical and electronics including skill development.

The CITD has conducted full evaluation of the project and concluded that the cost of each cluster is Rs 549 crore, he said adding that according to the agreement the Siemens would bring in software, expertise, intellectual property but not money. It was the government which brought money for infrastructure required for establishing the skill centres.

The tripartite agreement clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of each party. He further said that Siemens agreed to provide design, simulation and robotics systems. The then MD of APSSDC, Srikanth acknowledged the delivery of equipment and services as satisfactory on 5 August 2021 and this is after the change of regime, Salve said.

Arguing for the state government and the CID, senior counsel Rahatgi said that the petitioner was arraigned as accused in the FIR on 7 September and arrested on 9 September and today we are in 19 September. It is only a matter of 10 days. The case is still at a nascent stage. The petition should not be entertained at this stage. This involves a huge scam which requires investigation, he added.

As the petitioner applied for bail before the trial court and the matter is slated to be heard today, there is no teary hurry to press for quash of the FIR. A loot can never be part of the public function of a public servant. It is a calculated scam of the chief minister to loot the public exchequer, he said.

According to the landmark Niharika judgement, the court will not thwart investigation, he said and argued that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing in a matter of 10 days without there being an investigation.

The Supreme Court has said in strong terms that the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of police, Rohatgi argued. The SC has time and again said powers under 482 of CrPC should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases, he said. He wanted the police to be allowed to complete the investigation.

No tender was called for the project of this nature, another senior advocate, Ranjit Kumar said and added that Ganta Subba Rao was not a government official. He was an IT professional, handpicked and given four posts, he added.