HYDERABAD: Justice G Radha Rani of the Telangana High Court on Thursday reserved her decision on the anticipatory bail petition filed by journalist and political analyst Aruvela Shravan Kumar Rao who is A-6 in the high-profile phone-tapping case.
During the hearings, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that Sravan fled the country after the case was registered. However, Sravan’s counsel, Pappu Nageshwar Rao, refuted the charges, stating that the petitioner left for the USA out of fear of arrest but was not absconding and was readily accessible.
To this, the PP alleged that Sravan fled to the USA via London on March 13, 2024, immediately after the FIR was registered. He contended that Sravan had actively conspired with the former Special Intelligence Branch chief, T Prabhakar Rao (A-1), and provided sensitive information about political leaders and judges. The PP relied on confession statements from other accused (A-2, A-3 and A5), who implicated Sravan in political conspiracy and misuse of the SIB office for gathering opposition party intelligence during the 2023 Assembly elections.
The PP also highlighted Sravan’s frequent calls to the SIB office during the critical period leading up to the elections, alleging a conspiracy. He argued that Sravan’s role exceeded that of a journalist and directly interfered with state security protocols.
Nageshwar Rao dismissed the allegations as baseless, asserting that the charges under IPC and IT Act provisions did not apply to Sravan, as he is a private journalist and not a government employee. Counsel also read out Sravan’s contact information and current residential address in the USA to refute claims that he was evading arrest.
He claimed that Sravan’s interactions with the SIB chief were purely professional and involved political analysis, which is common for journalists and analysts.
During the hearing, Justice Radha Rani asked the PP if bail were granted with conditions directing Sravan to surrender and cooperate with the investigation, would the investigation proceed effectively in the presence of his legal counsel. To this, the PP sought time to obtain instructions. The court is expected to pronounce its decision on the anticipatory bail petition on December 4.