Vijayawada: The ACB Special Court on Monday deferred to Tuesday the verdict on TD chief N. Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for a house remand, after he was sent to the Rajahmundry Central Prison on a 14-day judicial remand in connection with the skill development fraud.
On the other hand, investigating agency AP CID also filed a petition seeking five-day custody of Naidu to question him.
With Naidu starting his 14-day remand on Monday in connection with the '371-crore scam, his counsel requested the court to consider a house remand, considering his advanced age and threat to life
Senior Supreme Court advocate Siddartha Luthra argued that his client Naidu was facing a threat to life at the prison and it was no longer safe for him to serve judicial remand. He expressed concern over security arrangements for Naidu, citing the presence of hardened criminals in the prison.
Advocate Luthra argued that the Centre had provided high security to Naidu and the state government should not intervene in the matter. He also quoted several past verdicts of the SC awarding house remands, including to five ministers in a case in West Bengal.
However, Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, representing the state government, argued that the AP CID was opposing house remand to Naidu and ruled out any provision for house remand under the CrPC.
Reddy submitted that Naidu was healthy and that it was safe for him to stay in prison, claiming security cover was enhanced by strengthening electronic vigilance through CCTV cameras. He ruled out any security threat to Naidu and said that a team of doctors was made available round-the-clock to take care of Naidu’s health needs.
Meanwhile, the Director General of Police sent a letter to the ACB court to issue directions to provide adequate protection to Naidu.
Later, Naidu’s counsel filed a petition in the court seeking direction to the state government to permit verification of documents pertaining to the AP Skill Development Corporation scam in the wake of the AP CID presenting a 28-page remand report.
After hearing both parties, the ACB special court judge expressed concern over the number of petitions already filed before the completion of the hearing on one petition. The judge advised them to file the petitions early and deferred the pronouncement of judgment in the current case to Tuesday.
