HYDERABAD: Citing the conduct of the petitioner, the severity of the allegations, and the established legal principles, Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court has rejected a criminal petition filed by Aruvela Shravan Kumar, Accused No. 6 (A-6) in the sensational phone-tapping case seeking anticipatory bail.
Shravan Kumar and his co-accused face allegations of illegally tapping phones, recording conversations and tracking political leaders and their supporters. The accused allegedly used advanced technology to create profiles and monitor locations through mobile phones.
The prosecution has also alleged that following the loss of the BRS in the 2023 Assembly elections, the accused attempted to erase evidence by formatting phones and damaging the hard drives of the SIB, resulting in a loss of crucial data.
Arguing for anticipatory bail, counsel for the petitioner contended that the case was baseless and lacked substantial evidence. She contended that mere interactions with officials of the SIB do not imply criminal involvement and that political surveillance does not constitute a crime.
Counsel maintained that gathering and sharing political information was a legitimate activity, and there was no credible proof of the petitioner’s alleged role in inducing political leaders to switch parties.
Additionally, counsel pointed out that the petitioner had travelled abroad before the FIR was registered and had been frequently visiting his ailing sister.
Opposing the bail petition, the Public Prosecutor argued that the investigation has uncovered a grave conspiracy involving criminal breach of trust, cyberterrorism and illegal surveillance. He asserted that the petitioner had misused his official position, posing a threat to national security and the public interest.
The prosecution highlighted that Section 409 of the IPC and Section 66(F) of the IT Act, 2000 — both of which carry a life sentence — are applicable in this case.
It was further stated that the petitioner fled the country after his name was revealed by A2, After reviewing the evidence, the court observed that anticipatory bail was an exceptional remedy granted only in extraordinary circumstances.