Telangana High Court Upholds Remand Of Ex-DSP Being Probed For Tapping Phones Of Political Rivals During Regime Of BRS Govt

The Telangana High Court has recently upheld the remand of the DSP, a senior member of the Special Intelligence Branch, who is under investigation for charges of misusing his official position to monitor political rivals by tapping their phones, under the regime of the BRS government.

“This Court does not need any necessity to interfere with the interrogation timings or with regard to other aspects as contended by the learned senior counsel, as all precautions were taken by the trial court while granting police custody stating that the petitioner-accused shall not be subjected to any third-degree methods and that he should be given access to his counsel and that the entire interrogation shall be recorded under the audio and video recordings. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel and any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court to interfere with the same,” Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani said.

Background:

It was stated that during the 2023 Telangana elections, some officers working in the SIB (a specialized organization with the Intelligence Department meant for collection of intelligence on Left Wing Extremism for the safety and security of the State), at the behest of the then ruling party, misused their official position to monitor political rivals.

One of the main suspects in the case is now a suspended DSP and senior member of the SIB, the petitioner, D. Praneeth Kumar.

It was stated that D. Praneeth Kumar had orchestrated the operation and allegedly destroyed evidence stored in hardware at the SIB head office, on the day Congress defeated BRS in the 2023 State elections. Praneeth was alleged to have entered the office, switched the cameras off, destroyed the hardware containing evidence, and replaced it with fresh hardware.

The phones of several political figures including the phone of the current CM Reventh Reddy are alleged to have been tapped, it was alleged.

It was stated that until now, the police have registered a case against 4 officials in connection with the case.

The case against D. Praneeth Kumar was registered based on a report lodged by the Additional Superintendent of Police on 10^th March, and soon after on the 13th, Praneeth Kumar was arrested.

Subsequently, it is stated that an application was filed seeking police custody of Praneeth Kumar for 10 days. The Magistrate granted the custody for 7 days. Against the said order, D. Praneeth Kumar the petitioner/accused had filed the present revision case.

The petitioner/accused contended that firstly, since the remand order was issued upon him just a day before the filing of the present writ, and no specific time of interrogation was stipulated in the remand order, the trial court ought to have directed the respondent police to recommit the petitioner to prison after the interrogation on a daily basis, owing to the inconvenience of sleeping at the Police Station.

It was further prayed that a venue of interrogation be fixed to curb the selective leaking of information that is being done by the police officials and that the accused/petitioner be interrogated only in the presence of his lawyer, a right that was being denied to him.

It was contended that the de facto complainant, the Additional Superintendent of police was actively taking part in the interrogation, and the same should be restricted.

The prosecution denied all the contentions raised by the accused/petitioner stating that the de facto complainant was not taking any part in the interrogation, that the interrogation was being conducted only in the presence of the lawyer of the accused, and that a press note was given only on the day of the arrest was made and that all news articles in the media henceforth, were based on the conclusion arrived at by the media houses.

Considering the gravity of the allegations and noting that the trial court had already imposed certain conditions, the bench refused to interfere with the remand order.

While dismissing the revision the bench found it apt to issue specific directions regarding the alleged involvement of the de facto complainant in the interrogation and deemed to give a direction to the Investigating Officer not to involve the complainant in the team which was constituted for interrogation of the petitioner-accused.

Case no.: CrlRC 494 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order