Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court stated that a responsible police officer must differentiate between lawful and unlawful orders from superiors.
She dismissed the bail application of suspended Additional Superintendent of Police Mekala Thirupathanna, who is accused in a significant phone tapping case.
‘Cannot escape accountability for his actions’
The judge emphasized that Thirupathanna cannot escape accountability for his actions by claiming he was merely following orders from his superiors, especially when those actions violated the privacy of innocent individuals.
Hyderabad: Phone tapping accused Bhujanga Rao booked for forgery
The judge rejected the argument from the petitioner’s counsel, who claimed that bail should be granted since the chargesheet had already been submitted.
She noted the public prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao’s point that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was received only after the chargesheet was filed, meaning the petitioner’s involvement could now be evaluated using this report.
The judge expressed concern that granting bail at this time could hinder the investigation, highlighting the need for a supplementary chargesheet that would address various elements, including the involvement of T Prabhakar Rao, the former chief of SIB, who is currently evading legal action.
The judge concurred with Nageswara Rao, stating that the prosecution has submitted extensive documentation, including information about numerous individuals whose phones were tapped and whose data was collected by the accused team.
She noted that the evidence presented by the prosecution indicates serious misconduct by SIB officials, including the petitioner and his associates.
It was clear that the FSL report was received after the chargesheet had been filed,” she added.
On FSL report data
Justice Sridevi further said that the FSL report included details about the mobile devices used by the accused, including the petitioner’s phone.
She emphasized that the data extracted from the petitioner’s phone requires further analysis for the investigation.
Additionally, she pointed out that two key witnesses—accused number 1, the former chief of SIB currently in the U.S., and accused number 6—have yet to be apprehended.
The judge concluded that since all accused are police officials in significant positions and substantial data needs to be analyzed, it is not appropriate to grant bail at this time.
The judge remarked that all the accused are police officials holding significant positions.
She further noted that due to the extensive data that needs to be analyzed and the necessity for the prosecution to file a supplementary chargesheet, the court believes it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this time.
