Andhra Pradesh high court reserves order on Vikranth’s anticipatory bail plea

Vijayawada: The high court on Tuesday reserved orders in the anticipatory bail petition filed by Y Vikranth Reddy in the case registered against him over allegations of forcible takeover of shares owned by K V Rao and family in Kakinada Seaports Pvt Ltd and Kakinada SEZ.
Arguing on behalf of the crime investigation dept (CID), advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas said Vikranth hatched a conspiracy along with those at the helm in govt at the time and threatened Rao with a false audit report which claimed that he caused a loss of Rs 965 crore to the state govt for which he would go to jail, and his family members would also have to face criminal cases. He was coerced to part with his shares in the port and SEZ for a pittance, Srinivas said, adding the CID conducted a preliminary investigation following Rao's complaint and found that shares worth Rs 2,600 crore were transferred to another company for just Rs 480 crore.
It was also found that AP Maritime Board, the competent authority, initiated proceedings in Jan 2021, after the completion of the shares transfer, but the audit report was submitted in Mar 2020 itself. The delay in initiating proceedings and submission of the audit report corroborates with the allegations of inducing threat for transfer of shares, said Srinivas. Another fact that calls for consideration was that after the completion of the shares transfer, the amount payable to the govt was reduced from Rs 965 crore to just Rs 9 crore, he stated. Similarly, Rao's stake in the SEZ was also transferred for just Rs 12 crore whereas the same was agreed to be sold at Rs 400 crore even after the deduction of the debt amount, he added. As the investigation is at a crucial stage, he requested the high court not to grant anticipatory bail to Vikranth.
Senior counsel T Niranjan Reddy, arguing on behalf of Vikranth, stated that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the alleged deal. He said the amount payable to the govt was reduced based on the expert opinion given by the then advocate general and a former judge of the Supreme Court. Though the case was registered more than two months ago, the CID did not issue any notice till date, which suggests the petitioner need not be arrested. Considering the arguments on both sides, Justice Srinivas Reddy reserved orders.