Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Wednesday reserved judgment on the anticipatory bail petition filed by former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T Prabhakar Rao in connection with the ongoing phone tapping case.
Justice J Sreenivas Rao also reserved his decision on an implead petition filed by S Sreedhar Rao, managing director of Sandhya Conventions, who claims to be a victim of illegal surveillance conducted under the alleged direction of Prabhakar Rao. Sreedhar sought to be heard before any relief is granted to the former officer.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel T Niranjan Reddy strongly objected to Sreedhar Rao’s impleadment, arguing that he had no locus standi in the matter. “This is our petition for anticipatory bail. Sreedhar Rao is facing 25 criminal cases and cannot join this proceeding,” the counsel contended.
He further argued that the prosecution cannot selectively implicate Prabhakar Rao in the phone tapping and destruction of evidence when such actions were allegedly authorised by the home secretary and the review committees.
Representing Sreedhar Rao, advocate A Sathya Siri countered that the criminal cases against her client were filed in a short span between Nov 6 and 18, 2021, allegedly at the behest of Prabhakar Rao. “My client’s phones were tapped, his live location tracked, and he was illegally picked up from Bengaluru and arrested,” she told the court.
However, Niranjan Reddy disputed these claims, stating that Sreedhar Rao’s number does not appear on the list of tapped phones. “His grievance is unfounded and irrelevant to the present bail petition,” he asserted.
Public prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao, however, supported Sreedhar Rao’s right to raise objections, arguing that the number of criminal cases against him does not negate his victimhood. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the PP emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving pending non-bailable warrants, ongoing extradition proceedings, or red corner notices. He submitted that such conditions apply to Prabhakar Rao.
The PP further argued that even after retirement, Prabhakar Rao held a cadre-level post, which is impermissible under service rules. Dismissing the defense’s claim that extradition proceedings had not begun, he informed the court that a letter rogatory had already been sent to a US court, marking the start of the legal extradition process.
“Even in emergency scenarios, the petitioner was bound to seek post-facto ratification of his actions by the review committee, which he failed to do,” the PP added.
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Wednesday reserved judgment on the anticipatory bail petition filed by former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T Prabhakar Rao in connection with the ongoing phone tapping case.
Justice J Sreenivas Rao also reserved his decision on an implead petition filed by S Sreedhar Rao, managing director of Sandhya Conventions, who claims to be a victim of illegal surveillance conducted under the alleged direction of Prabhakar Rao. Sreedhar sought to be heard before any relief is granted to the former officer.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel T Niranjan Reddy strongly objected to Sreedhar Rao’s impleadment, arguing that he had no locus standi in the matter. “This is our petition for anticipatory bail. Sreedhar Rao is facing 25 criminal cases and cannot join this proceeding,” the counsel contended.
He further argued that the prosecution cannot selectively implicate Prabhakar Rao in the phone tapping and destruction of evidence when such actions were allegedly authorised by the home secretary and the review committees.
Representing Sreedhar Rao, advocate A Sathya Siri countered that the criminal cases against her client were filed in a short span between Nov 6 and 18, 2021, allegedly at the behest of Prabhakar Rao. “My client’s phones were tapped, his live location tracked, and he was illegally picked up from Bengaluru and arrested,” she told the court.
However, Niranjan Reddy disputed these claims, stating that Sreedhar Rao’s number does not appear on the list of tapped phones. “His grievance is unfounded and irrelevant to the present bail petition,” he asserted.
Public prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao, however, supported Sreedhar Rao’s right to raise objections, arguing that the number of criminal cases against him does not negate his victimhood. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the PP emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving pending non-bailable warrants, ongoing extradition proceedings, or red corner notices. He submitted that such conditions apply to Prabhakar Rao.
The PP further argued that even after retirement, Prabhakar Rao held a cadre-level post, which is impermissible under service rules. Dismissing the defense’s claim that extradition proceedings had not begun, he informed the court that a letter rogatory had already been sent to a US court, marking the start of the legal extradition process.
“Even in emergency scenarios, the petitioner was bound to seek post-facto ratification of his actions by the review committee, which he failed to do,” the PP added.
