Hyderabad: On Monday, P Venkatagiri, Jubilee Hills ACP and the IO in first phone-tapping case filed the counter-affidavit in criminal petition 4207 of 2025 filed by T Prabhakar Rao, IPS (retd) A-1 in the first phone-tapping case (crime no.243/2024) registered in Panjagutta PS seeking “anticipatory bail”.

The IO vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of Prabhakar Rao, contending that his action in a criminal breach of trust cannot be pardoned. He contended that of the six accused in the case, four accused (A-2 to 4) spent more than 11 months in prison, later got bail from the SC, HC and the lower court. Prabhakar Rao, A-1 and Shravan Kumar Rao, A-6 and MD, I news, fled the country and evaded arrest; have filed petitions seeking anticipatory bail.

The IO contended that custodial interrogation of Prabhakar Rao is crucial to unravel truth, as he gathered significant material evidence. Such evidence should be confronted with the accused during interrogation; granting anticipatory bail would severely hamper the investigation and undermine its objectives. He contended that though the other accused have been interrogated, interrogation against petitioner is pending as he is absconding. For an effective interrogation, it is essential that he appears before the IO for questioning to uncover concealed information and evidence; If Prabhakar Rao is shielded by a pre-arrest bail order, it will be difficult to bring truth behind the case to light. Prabhakar Rao’s petitionl will again come up for hearing before Justice J Sreenivas Rao on April 15. Of the six accused, Prabhakar Rao, A-1, and Sravan Kumar, A-6, are evading arrest and investigation by fleeing oversees; other four accused are out on bail--Bhujanga Rao A-3, Radha Kishan Rao A-5 (got bail in HC), Tirupathanna A-4 (got bail from SC) and D Praneet Rao A-2 (got bail from lower court).

The petitioner sought “anticipatory bail” /a direction to release A-1 on bail in the event of his arrest/detention in PRC No.260/2024 (Crime No.243/2024) before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Hearing in the case was adjourned to April 15.

Pleas filed seeking quash of 2 FIRs

On Monday Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidar Goud of Patancheru filed two criminal petitions seeking a direction to quash two FIRs registered against him, one in Karimnagar and another in Ramagundam for posting defamatory and demeaning posts on X (Twitter) account. FIR 13 of 2025 is filed against the petitioner in PS CCPS Karimnagar, TG Cyber Security Bureau, FIR 13/2025 for offences U/s. 192, 353(1)(b), 352, 356 r/w. 61(2) BNS, 67 ITA Act, 2008.

In the FIR de facto complainant MA Wasim Akram, Karimnagar constable, noticed the petitioner’s poster: “No Vision, No Mission.. only 20% Commission!.. this is how the 15-month rule of the Revanth Reddy led Congress Government is in Telangana”.

The complaint stated the petitioner’s content on the Twitter against the CM is defamatory and demeaning, which was copied by Balu from the BRS Party Twitter Account and posted on the Twitter by changing the photograph with that of the CM. The complaint contends that such post is intentional, intended to provoke people, and conspired to spread false, inflammatory information through electronic and digital media. FIR 8 is filed in PS CCPS Ramagundam TSCSB for offences U/s. 192, 353(1)(b), 352, 356 r/w. 61(2) BNS, 67 ITA Act, 2008. De facto complainant Satish, PC Ramagundam, stated that while he was glancing at X(Twitter), he found the defamatory and demeaning post by the petitioner, “ Congress is the scourge of the State!... if the field is affected by the pest, the people will be disturbed’. The complainant contends that the content posted damages the CM’s reputation.

Nalla Balu contends that he has been falsely implicated in both cases; FIRs registered against him do not disclose commission of any offence. He cites a SC judgment that in such cases, complaint should be lodged by an officer in-charge of the PS, that too with prior approval of a superior officer; the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry; the offence, if proved, is punishable three years imprisonment or more but less than seven years.

In the FIRs the complaint is made by police constables; the ingredients of sections is lacking in the report; hence the petitioner sought a direction to quash the FIRs, including stay on all further proceedings, including arrest. The petitions will come up for hearing before a single judge on April 8.