Senior Counsel Challenges Second FIR in Phone-Tapping Case
Hyderabad: Senior lawyer Umamaheshwar Rao, representing accused Radhakishan Rao in the second phone-tapping case, argued in the Telangana High Court that the new FIR (1205/2024) was unfairly filed by the Panjagutta police. He claimed that the police included Rao in the case with bad intentions.
Rao pointed out that the first FIR was also registered at the Panjagutta police station for the same offence: phone-tapping. He argued that there cannot be two separate FIRs for the same crime. To support his claim, he referred to a judgment by Justice K. Lakshman in a similar case, as well as other Supreme Court rulings.
Justice Lakshman was hearing a petition filed by Radhakishan Rao, a former DCP of the Task Force, seeking to cancel the proceedings in the case filed by complainant Gadhagoni Chakradhar Goud.
Rao’s lawyer further explained that his client was arrested in the first phone-tapping case on March 29, 2024. After spending over 10 months in jail, he was granted bail on January 30, 2025. Other accused persons, including Bhujanga Rao, Mekala Thirupathanna, and Praneeth Kumar, also received bail. However, two other accused, former SIB chief T. Prabhakar Rao and Sravan Kumar, were still on the run.
The lawyer accused the government and police of deliberately trying to send Radhakishan Rao back to jail by filing a second FIR. He noted that the second FIR was not registered until Rao was released on bail, suggesting that the authorities planned to ensure he was imprisoned again.
Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao informed the court that Prabhakar Rao had chosen Radhakishan Rao as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) because they belonged to the same caste. He claimed that since 2017, Rao had close access to Prabhakar Rao.
The prosecutor further alleged that Rao was selected because he would follow orders from senior officials, particularly because he belonged to the same caste as former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR). Acting on instructions from then SIB chief Prabhakar Rao, he violated the Indian Telegraph Act, 1984, by illegally tapping the phones of politicians and bureaucrats.
According to the prosecution, Rao admitted his involvement in a statement given to the investigating officer. They also mentioned that statements from 15 witnesses had been recorded, and while a charge sheet was already filed, a supplementary charge sheet would be submitted once the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was received. The investigation was still ongoing.
Given these arguments, the prosecution opposed Rao’s plea to cancel the case. The court has reserved its decision.
