The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reserved its verdict on the bail petition of TDP chief and former Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in the AP State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) case.
During the closing arguments of the case, Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao, who is hearing the bail petition, reserved the verdict.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, representing the APCID, continued his arguments for the second day. He alleged that Suman Bose, the former managing director of Siemens India, diverted funds through Hawala transactions with the assistance of Chennappa.
In support of his claims, Reddy presented the court with evidence of communication between Bose and Chennappa. Additionally, he cited the statement of Mathew Thomas, a representative of Siemens International, to the Enforcement Directorate, in which Thomas stated that Siemens had no involvement in the skill development project.
Reddy further argued that even before Siemens India had spent 90% of its funds as per the project agreement, the state government had released Rs 270 crore and that rules were flouted at every stage of the project.
He also accused Naidu of violating the bail conditions by participating in a rally in Hyderabad and pointed out that a case had been registered against him in connection with the rally. Reddy contended that Naidu was influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence in the case.
He alleged that Naidu had submitted a false medical report to the court to obtain interim bail. He claimed that the latest medical report indicated that Naidu was suffering from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with irregular heart rhythm, but that this information was inaccurate. Reddy urged the court to allow government doctors to conduct medical tests on Naidu to verify his health condition.
Additionally, Reddy pointed out that Naidu had directly handed over the medical reports to the central jail superintendent, instead of submitting them to the court as per the bail conditions.
Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Dammalapati Srinivas, representing Naidu, countered Reddy’s arguments by stating that Naidu had no involvement in the diversion of funds. They maintained that the government had arrested Naidu out of political vendetta and that he had not violated any of the conditions for interim bail. They urged the court to grant Naidu bail.
Meanwhile, the CID submitted a written statement to the court detailing how funds were diverted to shell companies in the skill development case.