VIDADALA RAJANI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), seeking anticipatory bail by different accused i.e., Crl.P.No.3375 of 2025 (filed by A.1), Crl.P.No.3493 of 2025 (filed by A.3) and Crl.P.No.3455 of 2025 (filed by A.4) in same crime viz., Cr.No.01/RCO-CIU-ACB/2025 of Central Investigation Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order.

(2.) The above crime was registered against the petitioners and another for the offence punishable under Sec. 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'the PC Act') and Sec. 384, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). During the investigation, the investigating officer subsequently altered the offence under Sec. 384 IPC to Sec. 386 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the Vigilance and Enforcement (V&E) Department conducted an enquiry based on a representation from Sri Nallapaneni Chalapathi Rao, Managing Partner of Sri Lakshmi Balaji Stone Crushers, Edlapadu, Palnadu District. The complaint alleged that Smt. Vidadala Rajani (A.1, former Minister and MLA), Sri P. Joshua, IPS (A.2, then RV&EO, Guntur), and others demanded and accepted bribes. The enquiry report, submitted vide Letter No.3999/V&E/NR/2024 dtd. 3/12/2024, recommended a comprehensive ACB investigation, disciplinary action against A.2, and legal proceedings against other involved parties. The Government forwarded the V&E report to the ACB through Memo No. 2645183/SC.D/A1/2024 dtd. 23/1/2025, requesting an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the DG, ACB, A.P., Vijayawada sought sanction under Sec. 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Government, vide Memo No.2645183/SC.D/A1/2024 dtd. 18/2/2025, granted permission for investigation against A.2 and A.4 (Sri Dodda Ramakrishna, PA to A.1). However, through Memo No. 2723576/A1/2025/Poll.B, dtd. 7/3/2025, it clarified that A.1, being an MLA, does not require sanction under Sec. 17A as the alleged act, extorting money from a businessman, was unrelated to her official duties. According to the complainant, A.1, her brother-in-law Sri Vidadala Gopi, i.e., A.3, A.4, and A.2 demanded and extorted Rs.2.00 crores for A.1 and Rs.10.00 lakhs each for A.2 and A.3. A.2 allegedly conducted an unauthorized inspection of the complainant's stone crusher unit on 10/9/2020, without a formal petition or orders, solely to intimidate and extort.