'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 was a gap of almost more than three months in registration of FIR. Even after this lapse of three months they have not named petitioner. This shows that petitioner was brought in to rope in somebody else," he added. 

He submitted that no malice can be attached to the petitioner specially without producing the proceedings of the review committee to say that interception was done on behest of A1. He said that there is not even an iota of material that petitioner was responsible for interception and destruction except statements of some officers who were below the rank.

"From July 2024 you don't even communicate to petitioner...He has not obstructed any warrants till date. As on today there is no proclamation. Consider the petitioner's antecedents, that he was a police officer, his health condition being cancer patient and age touching 65 years. He is not a criminal, not an antisocial element. We have mentioned the medals he was granted by Government of India...So many awards. He worked relentlessly with all honesty. Now some mistakes somewhere happened in system and without producing necessary material they want to prosecute him," he added. 

In response to the submissions regarding the awards given to the petitioner, at the outset, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the State argued, "There was a gentleman born in this country in 1935 and died in 1984. He was a very celebrated soldier. A man by the name of Major General Shabeg Singh. He was one of our great decorated generals, turned rogue, joined Bhindranwale, and was responsible also for the demise of our former Prime Minister. So there is no answer to the fact that people can't go back, people cant go rogue. This is the case of a gentleman who went rogue. My learned friend wanted that statement. I have got the statement it is going to show his client in the true colours that the gentleman is". 

"He (petitioner) offers a passport which he doesn't have. He offers to come back to India and he never came. He claims to be a very  ailing man. Not a single document prior to his travel is placed on record. Till December 2023 you are capable, you are head of SIB and there is no health problem. Then on March you become so ill that you travel to the holy shrine at Tirumala. At no point of time has any doctor told you that please sir, you are not fit to travel please get medical check up done. The airline does not stop you. You land in the USA then you see the investigation going...then you start generating the material....If you were so unwell, you should have said Im an ailing man I need to retire. All of these arguments, I'm sorry to say this. There has to be an element of fairness on litigant's part. Here is a litigant who has consistently abused the process of law when he was holding that office and thereafter. He has sought to take the system for a ride. Because of the pleadings he has made and document filed in last one year it  shows a person who is a chameleon; who keeps changing colours depending on the order of the day," Luthra said. 

On the distinction between petitioner and other accused, Luthra said that petitioner was at the helm of affairs. 

"When you start tapping number of government functionaries...There is a PIL I don't need to get into it. It is a distasteful chapter where no element of government is left untouched. But the point is there has to be some level of compliance with procedural norms. What they did was, details are redacted, whatever they put up to committee, they say look this is the number...and it belongs to so and so and the committee looks at the representation that it belongs to so and so person and  they need it for an FIR in an investigation, and it is allowed," Luthra said. 

He however said that what was not realised was that the number belonged to a government functionary or a political rival. 

"It is not the mandate of any agency to tap anybody. This job was for specific purpose. And it should fulfil three tests-constitutional test under Article 19, Test under Telegraph Act and the procedural test. The devices have to be done away with in January and in July. But what devices are supposed to be done away with–pen drives and floppy disks. Where does it say that hard disk be broken. Hard Disk is to be preserved, data is to be deleted," Luthra added.  

After hearing the matter for some the court listed it for hearing on April 29.

Case title: T. Prabhakar Rao v/s State of Telangana

Case no.: CRLP 4207/2025