Telangana High Court Hears Phone Tapping Case
The Telangana High Court, on Friday, reviewed a petition filed by Dugyala Praneeth Kumar, also known as Praneeth Rao, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) and the second accused in a high-profile phone tapping case. Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy presided over the hearing.
Praneeth Kumar filed the petition seeking the cancellation of orders issued by the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and requested to be released on bail. The Court has issued notices to key officials, including the Principal Secretary of the Home Department, the Hyderabad Police Commissioner, and others involved in Crime No. 243/2024 of Panjagutta Police Station. These officials were ordered to respond by December 23, 2024.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that once a chargesheet is filed in court, it signifies the completion of the investigation. The counsel claimed that in this case, further investigation after filing the chargesheet was unnecessary, and on this basis, the petitioner was entitled to bail.
However, the Government Pleader (GP) for Home, Mahesh Raje, countered this argument. He stated that two key accused in the case—T. Prabhakar Rao, a former SIB Chief, and Aruvela Shravan Kumar Rao, a TV reporter—were still absconding. Despite their absence, the investigation had proceeded, and a chargesheet was filed. The GP emphasized that the ongoing investigation does not undermine the validity of the chargesheet or the case.
The GP further argued that once a chargesheet is filed, the accused cannot demand relief, even if the Investigating Officer has yet to submit all related documents. He asserted that further investigations could continue if the court takes cognizance of the offence.
The court also addressed related matters. It extended the interim bail of N. Bhujanga Rao and noted that criminal petitions filed by other accused, including retired DCP P. Radha Kishan Rao and TV reporter Aruvela Shravan Kumar, were pending orders.
Praneeth Kumar’s counsel contended that the final report was filed by the Investigating Team on June 10, 2024, without completing the investigation as required under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). He claimed the report was re-submitted multiple times to delay the petitioner’s mandatory right to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. This, they argued, was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner also highlighted that he was remanded to judicial custody on March 13, 2024, and completed 90 days in custody by June 11, 2024. Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, he was eligible for bail if the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days. In this case, the chargesheet was returned by the Magistrate on June 18, 2024, meaning no valid chargesheet existed on the 98th day.
The High Court is now reviewing the arguments and awaiting responses from the concerned parties before making its decision.
