ACB Court Rejects Chandrababu Naidu's House Remand Petition

TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu, the main accused in the AP Skill Development Corporation scam and in jail now, did not get any relief in the ACB court.

The court on Tuesday evening dismissed the house remand custody petition filed on his behalf.

The court agreed with the AP CID's argument in the case while dismissing house remand petition.

The court also ruled that it was rejecting the remand plea stating that he would be safe in jail.

In his order, the judge said, "There is more security in the jail. Once the court has remanded him, it is the responsibility of the system. They are asking for a house remand. But who is responsible if anything happens there? The CID has clearly stated all aspects of the security provided in the jail. We are dismissing the petition for house remand as the issue of providing NSG security has not been shown in the court by the petitioner. The petitioner also did not show the legal rules and regulations to keep him in house custody. For these reasons, we are dismissing the petition related to the house remand."

Naidu was on Monday remanded to 14-day judicial custody by the ACB court in the scam. His lawyers then approached the court asking it to treat it as house remand and issue house arrest orders.

Naidu's lawyer Siddharth Luthra said that there was a threat to Naidu's life. He also said that Naidu's NSG security, VVIP status, age (73 years) and health should be taken into consideration to allow his petition for house remand. He also referred to the case in which the Supreme Court allowed the house arrest of human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, who is an accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case.

However, the AP CID filed a counter objecting to this request. The Additional Advocate General of the State P Sudhakar Reddy, who argued the case on behalf of the CID, said that there was no threat to Naidu in the Rajahmundry central jail, and that the TDP chief was under full security.

"A separate room in the jail, home food, medicines and a personal assistant have been provided. And if Naidu is outside, there is a possibility of his influencing the witnesses. The house arrest petition does not deserve a hearing," Reddy argued, and urged the court to reject the petition.

The Vijayawada ACB court judge heard the arguments of both the parties and agreed with the CID's arguments.

Speaking to media persons later, Reddy said that there were only two types of custodies in the CrPC - judicial and police custodies - and that there was no house arrest provision in the code.

"All are equal before the law. The Rajahmundry jail has high security. Can we expect that much security in a private house? Moreover, the court has given permission for him to receive food from home. We have considered Naidu's requests. No one goes to their block without Naidu's permission. The doctors will be there to monitor Naidu's health," Reddy said.

Commenting on the absence of Naidu's name in the FIR of the case, he said that the name not being there in the FIR did not mean that no mistake had been made. He said that Naidu's role was revealed in the scam in the investigation of the CID.