Telangana HC hears bail plea of ex-SIB chief T Prabhakar Rao in phone tapping case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court adjudicated a criminal petition filed by T Prabhakar Rao, IPS (Retd), and former SIB chief, seeking anticipatory bail, in the first phone tapping case, on medical ground as he is allegedly suffering from throat cancer.

T Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner T Prabhakar Rao, made the plea before the Single Bench, comprising Justice J Sreenivas Rao on Friday, seeking protection to the petitioner from arrest. He assured the court that the petitioner is ready to come to India and appear before the investigating officer in the first phone tapping case on the condition that he is granted protection from arrest.

The other accused are overseas

While taking shelter under the Supreme Court order in the first phone tapping case, A Shravan Kumar, accused no 6, the senior counsel argued that the Supreme Court gave protection to Shravan and directed him to appear before the IO last month, after the High Court dismissed his plea, seeking anticipatory bail.

The senior counsel further argued that the case of Prabhakar Rao also falls on the same footing as both the accused Shravan and Prabhakar Rao, both are fugitives, both are overseas and are absconding.

HC asked to take 30 years of Prabhakar’s service into account

When the Supreme Court accepted Shravan’s plea and granted interim protection from arrest, the High Court here should also grant the same protection to T Prabhakar Rao, keeping in view his serious cancer ailment and also his 30 years of service, he rendered to the police department and the medals, with which he is decorated for his service.

Niranjan Reddy advanced his arguments on two main grounds, viz., interception and destruction. To intercept a phone call of any person, the state review committee comprising the chief secretary, home secretary and the DGP, who are the members and this committee should give its ascent for such interception and in this case, Prabhakar Rao in an IG rank officer, who only carried out the instructions of the state review committee. Instead of questioning the officials of the committee, the IO in this case is behind the petitioner, who was just carrying out the instructions.

“The petitioner is being used as a tool by the State, just to wreak its political vengeance against persons. The State wants to rope in some other people by taking the petitioner as an aid/tool, who are against the political party in power and when the petitioner expresses his willingness to come to India and intends to appear before the investigating officer, twisting the issue,” the petitioner said.

After July 2024, there was no communication/proceedings issued by the State government asking the petitioner to participate in the investigation. He was not issued a notice U/s. 41A CrPC asks him to attend the investigation.

Look out notice issued ahead of time

The senior counsel further informed the court that a Look Out Corner notice was issued against the petitioner well before the petitioner was declared as an absconder in the case i.e., prior to April 29. This LOC is in sheer violation of the Delhi High Court Judgment, which says that LOC can be issued only when the IO declares the accused as an ‘absconder.’

For destruction of hard discs, phones etc., which were used by the SIB in the phone tapping case, the senior counsel averred that the same committee takes a decision on destruction of objects, and here the petitioner had no role in the destruction of the objects and the committee ought to have taken a decision.

“There is no iota of material against the petitioner which says that the petitioner has destroyed the hard discs, cell phones or any other material used in the phone tapping case, except for the statements of some police officers, who contended in their statements that the petitioner directed them to destroy the objects,” the petitioner said.

Official routes can’t be used for personal gain

While refuting the contentions of Niranjan Reddy, Siddharth Luthra, senior counsel for the Telangana State government informed the court that Prabhakar Rao had played a crucial role in the first phone tapping case, which goes in sheer violation of the Indian Telegraph Act, which says that the official machinery cannot be used to tap the phones for personal gain.

Further, brushing aside the contention of Niranjan Reddy, who informed the court that Prabhakar Rao has put 30 years of services in the Police Department, for which he was decorated with IPM and PPM medals and on medical grounds, he should be granted anticipatory bail, Siddharth Luthra said that if Prabhakar Rao was suffering with cancer ailment, why did he opt for ‘employment in the Police Department as OSD’ after retirement while accepting the re-employment.

‘Why didn’t medical history stop him from travelling?’

“Didn’t his medical history stop him? How could he travel to Tirumala immediately after the FIR was registered in Panjagutta PS? From there, he went to Chennai and from there to the USA. During this travel, why didn’t the medical history stop him from travelling? The action of Prabhakar Rao is just like a chameleon, which changes colour as per his convenience,” the senior counsel said.

There are Army officials who are decorated with gallantry medals, but they also played havoc and misused their official positions, which led to the assassination of the former prime minister of India, and this contention goes against Prabhakar Rao’s counsel's contention that medals were awarded to him for his good service, he added.

Siddharth Luthra vehemently opposed the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel, and due to paucity of time, the criminal petition was adjourned to April 28 for his arguments.