Telangana High Court Grants Protection From Arrest To BRS MLA In Alleged Phone Tapping Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

5 Dec 2024 5:09 PM

  • Telangana High Court Grants Protection From Arrest To BRS MLA In Alleged Phone Tapping Case

    The Telangana High Court has directed Police officials not to arrest BRS MLA T. Harish Rao accused of allegedly tapping the phones of Politician (from BSP) and social worker Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud.The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in a criminal petition filed by Rao seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him under section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 386 (extortion),...

    The Telangana High Court has directed Police officials not to arrest BRS MLA T. Harish Rao accused of allegedly tapping the phones of Politician (from BSP) and social worker Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud.

    The order was passed by Justice K. Lakshman in a criminal petition filed by Rao seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him under section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 386 (extortion), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act.

    The bench clarified that the accused MLA will have to cooperate with the investigation and provide any required information.

    Therefore, Investigating Officer in Crime No.1205 of 2024 pending on the file of Panjagutta Police Station is directed not to arrest the petitioner till 30.12.2024. However, investigation may go on and the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer by furnishing information and documents, as sought by him.

    Background:

    The case originated when the defacto complainant in the above-mentioned Criminal petition addressed a letter to the Telangana High Court praying that the court may direct the investigating authorities to take action on his representation given in June, alleging phone tapping by the accused.

    In the letter addressed by Goud to the High Court, he stated that Rao had become displeased with him for conducting social welfare campaigns within his constituency and subsequently standing against him in the elections.

    Goud alleged that after joining the BSP party in 2023, he and his supporters would receive threat calls, which spoke about confidential information that made him suspect that his phone was being tapped. He further stated that in August 2023, Apple Inc. emailed him informing him that his device might be targeted by state-sponsored machinery.

    This year, the BRS government, which was the previous ruling party in the State of Telangana faced allegations of using State Machinery to illegally spy on known political and bureaucratic adversaries by tapping their phones.

    While the letter addressed to the Court was withdrawn by Goud, a case was registered against Rao on the 1st of December following a fresh complaint.

    On Thursday, Rao approached the Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him.

    Senior Counsel J. Ramchander Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that the complaint was politically motivated and the contents lacked ingredients of the alleged offenses. It was also argued that there was no explanation for the delay in lodging a complaint.

    Senior Counsel Sidharth Luthra appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the investigation was at a very nascent stage and should not be stalled. He further argued that the order for ' not to arrest' should not be passed in a application seeking quashment under 482 CrPc, as the Code provides for anticipatory bail under 438 crpc.

    Referring to a judgment passed by Justice Lakshman himself, the bench noted that merely because Crpc provides for a provision under which anticipatory bail can be sought, it does not bar the Court from granting protection from arrest under a 482 petition.

    “As discussed supra, there is no explanation for the delay caused in lodging the complaint. Prima-facie, the contents of the complaint lack the very ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner, more particularly, under Sections 386, 409 and 506 of IPC. In a matter like this, custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required. He is sitting M.L.A. This Court is having power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to grant protection to the accused as held by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.1866 of 2024.”

    The matter is posted to 30th December for further hearing.

    Crlp 14861 of 2024

    Thanneru Harish Rao vs. State of Telangana

    Counsel for petitioners: Sr. Ramchander Rao appearing on behalf of Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy

    Counsel for respondent: Sr. Sidharth Luthra appearing on behalf of PP for the State of TS.

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Next Story