Crime

Phone tapping case: Hyderabad police charge senior officials

Phone Tapping Case

HYDERABAD: Hyderabad police have officially charged four senior police officials in connection to a high-profile phone tapping case. The individuals facing charges include DSP D. Praneeth Rao, ASPs Bhujanga Rao and Tirupathanna, and ex-DCP (Task Force) Radha Kishan Rao. Authorities have also accused two fugitives: ex-Head of the Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) Prabhakar Rao and Sravan Kumar, a high-ranking staff member at a local media company.

Interpol red corner notice sought

Filing the chargesheet is crucial to secure a red corner notice from Interpol for Prabhakar Rao and Sravan Kumar. This notice could aid in the global pursuit and potential extradition of the suspects. Despite attempts to destroy evidence by damaging storage devices at the SIB office, investigators found that more than 1,200 phones were tapped with help from service providers. However, the chargesheet did not name any political leaders affiliated with Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

Police also invoked Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused for cyber terrorism and violations of the Information Technology Act. This section addresses public officials who intentionally break the law to harm others.

The case was initially registered by Panjagutta police on March 10 immediately after the assembly election results were announced. Which is followed by a complaint from an SIB additional superintendent of police in the admin wing. The complaint alleged that Praneeth Rao, under instructions from Prabhakar Rao, established a Special Operations Team (SOT) within the SIB to illegally tap the phones of opposition leaders and other targeted individuals. Intelligence gathered from these operations was allegedly used by Radha Kishan and Bhujanga Rao to take actions against those under surveillance.

The Telangana police submitted the first chargesheet in the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally on Tuesday, adhering to the requirement to file within 90 days of the accused’s arrest. This chargesheet filing coincides with the pending bail applications for the accused.

The counsel for the accused argued that the police had not presented sufficient evidence against their clients. They also accused authorities of leaking information to the media to influence the bail proceedings. The public prosecutor opposed bail, citing the crucial stage of the investigation and the risk posed by the two absconding accused. The court has reserved its decision on the bail petitions until Wednesday.

This case underscores the serious implications of unauthorized phone tapping and the stringent legal measures being pursued against those involved. The pursuit of the fugitives and the legal proceedings against the charged officials will be closely monitored in the coming days.