Live
- Aim to design Tirumala into a planned model town'-TTD EO
- Maha records 65.11 per cent polling, highest in three decades
- Have no trust in pre-poll surveys- DKS
- The Rana Daggubati Show at IFFI 2024, Redefining Celebrity Talk Shows
- TN govt to reject Tungsten mining proposal in Madurai district: Forest Minister
- Bhupesh Baghel threatens defamation case over allegations in Bitcoin scam
- I want to have that chance of playing in IPL, says Swastik Chikara ahead of mega auction
- Damson Technologies Inaugurates State-of-the-Art Manufacturing Facility in Ahmedabad with Rs. 200 Crore planned Investment
- Waqf row: BJP stages protest condemning land grab in Karnataka
- President Droupadi Murmu Graces Koti Deepotsavam in Hyderabad
Addl DCP accused in ‘phone-tapping case’ files bail plea in HC
Telangana High Court
Mekala Tirupathanna, Additional DCP, who is A-4 among the six accused in the phone-tapping case (crime no. 243 of 2024), filed a criminal petition in the Telangana High Court on Friday, seeking a direction to release him on bail.
Hyderabad: Mekala Tirupathanna, Additional DCP, who is A-4 among the six accused in the phone-tapping case (crime no. 243 of 2024), filed a criminal petition in the Telangana High Court on Friday, seeking a direction to release him on bail.
D Prabhakar Rao, IPS (retd), is A-1; Dugyala Praneeth Rao, DSP (A-2); Nayini Bhujanga Rao, Additional SP (A-3); P Radha Krishan Rao, DCP (retd) (A-5); and Aruvela Shravan Kumar Rao (A-6), a TV channel reporter. Bhujanga Rao has got bail from the lower court on medical grounds. The case was registered for offences U/s 120-B, 201, 409, and 427 of IPC r/w. 34 of IPC, Sec. 3 of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985, and U/s. 65, 66 and 70 of the IT Act. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that the chargesheet in the case was filed before the XIV ACMM, Hyderabad, on June 10, which was returned by the court many times due to a lack of sanction. He contended that the period of 60/90 days from the date of filing of the chargesheet ended, by which date the investigating officer had neither filed the chargesheet nor the final report, as the court had rejected the chargesheet on the ground that it was incomplete/deficient. On this ground itself, he is entitled for bail, as contemplated in U/s. 167 of the CrPC.
The chargesheet, which was filed on June 10, was rejected on June 18, on June 25, and finally on July 11; the chargesheet was filed again on July 11 when the court took cognisance. As on June 22, the date on which there was no chargesheet, “as on the date or time of filing of the application or default bail, there was no chargesheet on the file of the XIV ACMM, which returned the chargesheet due to non-compliance of objections. The petitioner contended that the statutory power to commit a person accused of an offence to custody U/s.167 CrPC ends on the completion of 60/90 days. In this case, the judge continued to remand the petitioner even after the completion of the mandatory period. He said the investigation in the case—according to the prosecution—is complete; all material witnesses are police officers; all the alleged material evidence is collected and deposited in court; and he will cooperate with the investigating officer. On this ground, he sought bail. The petition will be heard by the single bench on August 27.
