Second phone-tapping case: Harish Rao’s counsel opposes plea seeking vacation of stay on investigation

Hyderabad: Dama Seshadri Naidu, senior counsel for former minister T Harish Rao, on Thursday vehemently opposed in the Telangana HC contentions of Siddharth Luthra, senior SC counsel for the State government, seeking vacation of the “stay orders on investigation” dated February 19.

Naidu, during the hearing in the second phone-tapping case registered by the Panjagutta PS, said it is not the de facto complainant (Mr. Gangaboina Chakradhar Goud) but it is the government which is finding fault with the petitioner, Harish Rao… it should be prosecution, not persecution… we wanted a fair investigation but the IO has entered into persecution… kindly appreciate the conduct of the government, how vindictive its approach is as the IO is arresting people left right and centre and now he is trying to apprehend the petitioner in this case…. his reputation is at stake, he contended.

Advancing his arguments, Naidu informed Justice Kunuru Lakshman that the government was backing a person (Dr. Goud) who has 11 criminal cases registered against him and pending since 2006, including one case U/s. 376 IPC (rape) in which the 164 CrPC statements had been recorded. Concluding he said the action of the government and the IO in the case is vexatious, vindictive; the whole procedure is untenable. He sought extension of the interim order of February 19.

Luthra sought vacation of the stay order of February 19 passed by Justice Kunuru Lakshman directing the IO in crime no.1205 of 2024 not to proceed with the investigation. He accused the instructing counsel or a junior counsel of Naidu of suppressing certain facts before the court. He further stated that the other three accused arrested by the IO were in prison. Naidu sought a stay on the Investigation apprehending that the IO may even arrest Harish Rao. The IO had filed custody petitions of the other accused.

Luthra informed the court that at the insistence of Harish Rao(the then Irrigation Minister) the SIB had illegally tapped phones of Goud and his family members, invading into their privacy, in blatant violation of chapter 36 of the Telegraph Act. The SIB officials ought not have tapped the phones of the de facto complainant, as it is purely a private work, not official.

The counsel appearing for Goud denied all contentions of Naidu. The judge heard two criminal petitions filed by Harish Rao and Radhakishan Rao, retired DCP and A-2, seeking directions to call for records in FIR no 1205/2024 dated December 1, 2024 of Panjagutta PS and quash it. Hearing in the case was adjourned to March 3; until then the interim order is extended.