*_#SupremeCourt hears the bail plea of phone-tapping case_*

  *_#SupremeCourt hears the bail plea of Mekala Thirupathanna, a suspended police officer accused of phone-tapping bureaucrats and judges. In October, Telangana HC denied him bail._* 

*_Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma_*

*_Sr Adv Siddhartha Luthra(for State of Telangana): a gentleman was appointed as IG, he then creates a special operation team and this gentleman was there in that team._*

*_Luthra: there is government equipment, they have changed the passed. This surveillance happened. HC is monitoring. We are creating to get data from google because they have created complete blockage_*

*_J Sharma: he has worked for you for 29 years, no single allegation [in those years]_*

*_Sr Adv Siddhartha Dave: one year into the retirement_* 

*_Luthra: it is a question of 3 months, we will complete the investigation against him. We have a process of questioning witnesses.16 people have to be examined._*

*_Dave: statute mandate 60 or 90 days.they filed chargesheet.now, they want more time. this is nothing but to defeat the purpose of S. 167._*

*_Luthra: what happened was, we find material against him. for the data, we did not have the passport. Now, these are government servers. there is a whatsapp group,18 members.We have examined some and we have to examine others. they are his people tapping phones._*

*_Luthra: can I today, record the phone of anybody just because a request comes from third-party? We need to examine crucial witnesses related to him. if today, he is released, the witnesses will be exposed._*

*_Luthra: we have asked for the data internationally._*

*_J Nagarathna: leave granted._*

*_Luthra: let me examine 4 crucial witnesses._*

*_Luthra: can men in uniform be allowed to create havoc in the system?_*

*_J Nagarathna: men in uniform has equal right to protection before the law_*

*_Order: As per the appellant's counsel, the appellant is accused, SP working in the SIB/SOT comprising of 30 police officers whose official duty was as direction to carry out surveillance over urban naxals, while discharging the said duty, the appellant was arrested on frivolous charges and is in custody for 10 months._*

*_Order: there is no reason why continued incarceration is required when chargesheet is filed and trial is yet to commence. having regard to nature of trial..this court may grant the relief of bail. it was submitted that appropriate conditions may be imposed. Per contra, the State objected to grant of relief. The appellant went beyond his duty and therefore rightly incarceration for gross abuse of law. any release of appellant would prejudice the case._*

*_Order: appeal allowed. he shall extend complete cooperation in trial and not cause any delay and not misuse his liberty and not influence witness or tampering of witnesses. Any traction would lead to cancellation of bail._*

Courtesy / Source by : https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1869255304539775167?t=Mye5dWbLTxGqV9guqgRuAg&s=08