Former Andhra Pradesh DGP V Sunil Kumar has urged the CBI to review bail conditions in two pending bank fraud cases.
Why Has the Former DGP Approached the CBI?
Retired Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police V Sunil Kumar has written to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), requesting an examination of whether bail conditions should be tightened or bail cancelled in pending bank fraud cases against Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishna Raju.
In his representation to the CBI Director, Sunil Kumar referred to concerns raised by industrialist Madala Srinivasu regarding an alleged threat to his safety. He asked the agency to determine whether the circumstances could affect witnesses, evidence or the ongoing investigations.
Sunil Kumar said he was making the representation as a citizen and a State Bank of India depositor. He also referred to an earlier complaint submitted to the CBI and said subsequent developments required urgent examination.
What Are the Two Bank Fraud Cases?
The representation concerns two cases being investigated by the CBI involving allegations of financial irregularities and diversion of bank funds.
- The first case, RCBD1/2019/E/0003, concerns Ind-Barath Power Madras Limited and others, involving an alleged diversion of approximately ₹947.71 crore.
- The second case, RCBD1/2021/E/0002, relates to Ind Barath Power Gencom Limited and its directors. Registered following a complaint by the State Bank of India, it involves alleged bank fraud of approximately ₹237.84 crore.
The allegations include cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and other offences. The representation also refers to a forensic audit that reportedly identified suspected fund diversion, questionable inter-corporate deposits and inadequate supporting records.
What Concerns Were Raised About Witness Safety?
According to Sunil Kumar’s representation, Madala Srinivasu had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking protection because of an alleged threat to his life and safety.
Srinivasu, described as an industrialist and director, sought two armed personal security officers. His petition names Raju in his personal capacity, along with Union and State authorities. Sunil Kumar maintained that the petition did not independently establish wrongdoing. However, he argued that the concerns warranted examination in connection with the pending investigations.
He requested the CBI to assess whether any circumstances suggested intimidation, interference with witnesses or risks to evidence.
What Action Has the CBI Been Asked to Consider?
Sunil Kumar urged the investigating agency to examine the High Court records and determine whether there was evidence of intimidation or interference that could justify approaching the competent court. He suggested that possible measures could include seeking cancellation of bail or imposing stricter bail conditions, if warranted by the findings.
The former police chief also requested appropriate witness-protection and evidence-preservation measures. He maintained that the cases involved substantial public funds and that protecting witnesses and preserving evidence were important to ensuring a fair investigation.
The representation seeks a review of the circumstances surrounding the pending cases. Any decision concerning bail would require examination of the relevant facts and appropriate judicial proceedings.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
