'Malicious Prosecution': Ex-Special Intelligence Bureau Chief To Telangana High Court For Anticipatory Bail In Phone Tapping Case

Arguing his anticipatory bail plea in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS, former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao told the Telangana High Court on Friday (April 25) that the prosecution lodged against him is malicious. He has also moved an interim application seeking interim protection from arrest. The former IPS officer further said that there is not even a semblance of evidence against him and the prosecution must show that he ordered the interception of phones and other devices and also ordered its destruction. Notably, Last month the Supreme Court had granted interim protection against arrest to co-accused (A6) Aruvela Shravan Kumar–Managing Director of a Telugu media outlet, to allow him to travel from the United States to India for the purpose of investigation. During the hearing today, the senior counsel appearing for the former IPS officer submitted before Justice J Sreenivas Rao, "This is malicious prosecution. I don't think they have anything against the petitioner. They did not issue any notice to petitioner to participate in the investigation. I'm going to demonstrate that interception was not done by him (Rao)...destruction was not by him". Pointing to the Telegraph Act and the relevant rules he submitted that there is a review committee which includes the state's chief secretary and law secretary."They don't examine him, call him. The review committee is vested with power of interception and destruction. They then make allegation that petitioner was incharge that he was custodian of everything. And he intercepted illegally and he destroyed sensitive data. Interception is concerned, they have examined only constable and SI. They are prosecuting an IG officer and they are examining only constable and SI. None of the review committee members are being examined. If interception and destruction is to be alleged it is to be against the committee. They should first come and say that 'these interceptions were made without our knowledge'," he said. He further said that destruction is "permissible under statute", it has to be done because of there being sensitive information that may have been gathered against terrorists other persons needs to be deleted. But which items are to be continued and which are to be destructed is the discretion of the committee, he said. "In the main chargesheet they have not examined anybody to show how this procedure takes place. The committee was supposed to meet in January 2024. Because of elections, committee met on 2-12-2023. Petitioner resigned from the post on 4-12-2023. He left office by afternoon 4:00pm. An incharge officer was appointed by that time to take charge from petitioner. This is the suppression they have made as they don't disclose that some other officer had taken charge. The destruction happened after 8:00pm. The intelligence chief having received resignation of petitioner, immediately appointed somebody in his place, that they don't produce. Review committee nobody is examined, incharge person they have not shown. They then invent a story and some constables and Sub Inspectors are introduced to state that in the morning, prior to leaving office Mr Prabhakar Rao called us to his office and instructed us to destruct. Once a person resigns even nobody will look at him. They say after he left office, we implemented his directions. Please see the nexus, whether they implemented review committee order for destruction or whether they implemented order passed by commissioner," he added. "Entirety of data was retrieved by competent authority before its destruction. This is the suppression. Nothing is destroyed. Review Committee steps have been suppressed. Entire sensitive data that was required, to continue operations against terrorist and anti social elements, that was preserved by the competent authority," he added."State has propagated that judges phone call was intercepted. It has now come on record that there was no interception of any of the instruments of any of the learned judges. There is nothing on record as on today that any telephone or instrument or any of the learned judges of this court...only one learned judge's Call Data Record was collected that is for obvious intelligence wanted to look into CDR that they are entitled to look into," the counsel said. The senior counsel said that the State was prosecuting their own officer however they don't know the rule regarding the review committee. "Review committee is competent authority for interception and destruction. It is nobody's case that committee was misguided or misinformed. It is for the prosecution to establish that the procedure prescribed was being followed from time to time. They should show that these particular interceptions and destructions were not prescribed by review committee, till they produce such material a criminal case cannot be made against the petitioner on these two allegations. There ...

'Malicious Prosecution': Ex-Special Intelligence Bureau Chief To Telangana High Court For Anticipatory Bail In Phone Tapping Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags