Andhra High Court cancels Srilakshmis bail

HYDERABAD: The AP High Court on Monday set aside the bail granted by a lower court to IAS officer Y Srilakshmi, an accused in the Obulapuram mining scam case. The officer was ordered to surrender before the CBI special court before Jan. 6 failing which the CBI can arrest her.Pronouncing the order on CBI’s petition contesting the bail granted to her, Justice N R L Nageshwara Rao said it would be difficult for the agency to gather evidence on the mining scam if Srilakshmi was given bail. It was during her time as secretary, industries, that crucial decisions in the case were taken, including granting mining leases to the OMC Since the investigation into these decision has not yet been completed, the judge found merit in the CBI’s argument that Srilakshmi was in a position to destroy evidence if she were at large.The judge said Srilakshmi was a “brilliant and intellectual person” and therefore it was “really sad and unbecoming” of a secretary to the government to contend that the GOs were issued in her name without her knowledge. The judge found little basis to her claim of not having seen or signed the GOs. He pointed out that Srilakshmi’s subordinates had vouched that the GOs were issued with her concurrence.“The respondent (Srilakshmi) cleverly wants to shift the blame to the subordinate staff. All this has to be mentioned by me for the reason that consideration for bail shall be based on the character of the person involved in the crime. The conspiracy cannot be proved by documentary evidence alone and unless oral evidence is entirely collected by the investigating agency, mere documentary evidence is not sufficient and such a right of the investigating agency cannot be deprived,” the judge noted.Citing the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Amarmani Tripathi case, judge Nageshwara Rao said the apex court has laid down that in considering bail, the status and conduct of the accused must be taken into consideration apart from the nature and gravity of the charge.“There is more than sufficient material available on record as to how the respondent was associated with the grant of mining leases and GOs which favoured OMC, ignoring the vital condition that the leases be for ‘captive mining’ only.”