Phone Tapping Case | Telangana High Court Reserves Verdict On Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Ex-Special Intelligence Bureau Chief

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 30) reserved its verdict on an anticipatory bail plea moved by former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao in an alleged case of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous government led by BRS.

After hearing all the parties, Justice J Sreenivas Rao said, "Heard both sides. For orders and judgments". 

Senior advocate T Niranjan Reddy appearing for the petitioner had argued that prosecution lodged against him is malicious. It was 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. 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. 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  review committee, he said.

"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.

Meanwhile senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for the State had argued that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the alleged illegal surveillance.

He said, "This man is the mastermind. He is the man who is the head of the agency who carries this out. Absolutely illegal. Appointed as Chief of Bureau Operations when he was healthy hale and hearty, constituted to curb left wing extremism. After his retirement he is appointed as a designated authority for purpose of issuing emergent orders. He is constitutes a special operations team (SOT) which is working...it is carrying out surveillance on people from all limbs of government. Whether be it political leaders, journalists, functionaries of every institution. Collection of personal data, interception of phone calls, monitoring location. None of this has anything to curbing leftwing extremism. Leaders of mainstream political parties cannot be roped in".

He also argued that the petitioner was evading appearance despite non-bailable warrants issued against him. 

On why CrPC Section 41A notice was not issued to the petitioner Luthra said, "We needed to find out where he was because he was not responding. Much was said that we sent 91 notice to his son. How do I find you? I cant find you so I have to extradite you. Much was said about the 41A notice not issued. I cannot send him 41A by fax or by email. Reason is Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil, the law has been settled that you cannot issue 41A notice by fax or by email it has to be given by hand. But I cant give it to you by hand because you are sitting in the US. So how do I do it, through extradition. Which I have started process has started which is pending. That is why I issued notice under 91 CrPC to his son, and petitioner is very aggrieved about that".

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

Case no.: CRLP 4207/2025