The petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession and had connived, conspired and participated with other accused to siphon off government grant money to the tune of more than 371 crores under the Central Govt scheme of skill development. The petitioner was made accused under sections 166,167,418,420,465,468,471, 409,209,109 read with 120b of India Penal Code 1860 read with section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) established skill development centers in six (6) different clusters at the inception at the cost of Rs 546,84,18,908/- with M/s SIEMENS and Design Tech jointly and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed to provide training software development including various sub modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. MoU did not carried any sub-contracting clause in it but M/s SIEMENS and Design Tech sub-contracted large part of its work to M/s Skiller Enterprises Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. Design tech claimed royalty and subscription payments to Skiller since they had developed the software. On the other hand on confrontation Skiller claimed that no technical work has been sub-contracted and training software development including various sub modules supplied were technical material only, payment of royalty and subscription have been wrongly mentioned in the invoices. On in-depth scrutiny into records by A.D.G.G.I revealed that technical material was purchased by Skiller from 5 different companies at Mumbai and New Delhi which were shell/defunct companies formed by the other co-accused for issuing invoices without providing any services. In two (2) out of five (5) companies, accused CA’s wife was the Director. Counsel for respondent called for the attention of Hon. Court towards avoidance of petitioner for appearance before the Investigation officer during crucial period, though he appeared before the investigating agency on 22.12.2021 and 18.04.2022. He emphasised that much information such as modus operandi and indulgence in creating fake invoices etc was within exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. He requested for custodial interrogation of petitioner and dismissal of bail application.