The Supreme Court of India has directed the return of the passport of former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao, who is accused in the Telangana phone tapping case involving politicians and high court judges. The Court also ordered that no coercive action should be taken against Rao until further notice. He has been asked to file an affidavit of undertaking before the Court, promising to return to India within three days of receiving his passport.
Read also:Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal Upon Surrender in Case Linked
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized balancing the interests of both parties. This comes after the Telangana High Court, on May 3, dismissed Rao’s plea for interim protection from arrest, with Justice J. Sreenivas Rao orally describing the plea as a "malicious protection."
During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing Rao, argued that his client was unable to return from the United States due to the revocation of his passport and a red corner notice issued by the State. Naidu pointed out that Rao was not an accused when he initially traveled to the US and described the State’s actions as excessive.
Naidu stated:
"They even cancelled his passport and he could not come back. He has to apply for a special permission to come back. Hounding, virtually for someone who has served for 30 years...He is being hounded."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Telangana, argued against any relief for Rao, stating that he was a declared absconder under the law. He pointed to a previous judicial order declaring Rao as an absconder and cited the Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) judgment to support his claim.
Mehta remarked:
"He is a fugitive, he is a declared absconder under the provisions of the Code by a competent court...This is happening very frequently, the accused leave the country and then ask for anticipatory bail. As a nation, we don't bow down to such a technique."
Read also: Supreme Court Orders Registry to Hold TDR Certificates for Bangalore Palace Acquisition
Naidu responded that the State had not informed the Court that Rao was not an accused at the time he left India:
"On the day I left the country, I wasn’t an accused. My passport, within a month's time of registering a crime, was revoked. It's hounding."
Justice Nagarathna observed that a person cannot be labeled a fugitive merely for leaving the country after an FIR is registered:
"Merely because an FIR is registered and the person leaves India, that is not a further crime. Let him come back; we will keep the matter pending, and the petitioner shall not leave the shores of India."
Solicitor General Mehta maintained that the State would arrest Rao upon his return:
"No, we want to arrest him. I am making it very clear, I am not hiding it...This is taking the Supreme Court on a joyride."
Naidu objected to Mehta’s "joyride" comment, stressing that this was a matter of a person’s liberty. Justice Nagarathna also questioned the State's approach:
"On one hand, you impound his passport, and on the other hand, you say he is a proclaimed offender and he has not come back."
Last month, the Supreme Court granted interim protection against arrest to co-accused Aruvela Shravan Kumar, a Telugu media outlet managing director, to facilitate his travel from the US to India for investigation purposes. Other accused individuals have already secured regular bail.
Case Details: T. PRABHAKAR RAO Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA|SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025
