Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today(May 29) directed the return of the passport to former Special Intelligence Bureau Chief T Prabhakar Rao, accused of phone tapping of politicians and high court judges in the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi-led Government in Telangana, to come to India. Till the next order, the Court ordered no coercive steps against Rao. He is also asked to give an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that, within 3 days of the receipt of the passport/travel document, he will return to India.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed this order, remarking that the Court is required to balance the interests of the parties.

This comes after, on May 3, Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court dismissed his application seeking interim protection from arrest. During the hearing, the Court had orally stated that this was a malicious protection against the petitioner.

Before a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Rao, submitted that he is unable to return from the United States and has to apply for special permission to return to India. He stated that at the time when the First Information Report was registered against him, he had gone to the United States. He pointed out that subsequently, he was declared an absconder and his passport was also revoked. Naidu argued that Rao has been hounded by the present State Government to an extent that a red-corner notice has been issued against him.

He said: "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, if they are so confident about their case, they could convict me, they could confine me forever. That's not the case. It's just pretrial incarceration for they are hellbent on because the then Opposition leader, the present Chief Minister, we have filed all the reports, have given- look, we will hound you!"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Telangana, pressed that the matter is very serious and no interim protection whatsoever should be granted to the petitioner. He said that the State has a preliminary objection to his anticipatory bail because he is an absconder, and the law does not allow an absconder to get the relief of anticipatory bail. He added that there is a judicial order in this regard declaring him as an absconder.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the IO, also opposed the plea for anticipatory bail. He referred to the Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) judgment.

Naidu had also objected to the fact that the Respondent is being projected as two parties, whereas there is only one party, which is the State.

The Court was willing to give him some interim protection and that his passport be returned so that the petitioner can join the investigation; however, SG Mehta vehemently opposed the plea and also remarked that the Court is granting relief before hearing him. He said: "If his anticipatory bail is dismissed, which I feel it should be dismissed, and I will be able to satisfy this court, let his passport be restored and he comes back to India and we need his custodial interrogation. Matter is more serious than what is being projected before your Ladyship."

Remarking that the Court does not want the investigation to be frustrated, Justice Nagarathna said: "Secure the man first.." On this, Mehta said that the Union Government has already sought his extradition. However, on this, Justice Nagarathna questioned: "You see, if he can't come, you cannot say he is away from the law...See, he's not a fugitive. Give him his passport..."

SG Mehta replied that the petitioner is in fact a fugitive. He said: "He is a fugitive, he is a declared absconder under the provisions of the Code by a competent court, and I will be assisting with three judgments that once you are declared as an absconder, anticipatory bail is not maintainable....This is happening very frequently, the accused who understands the seriousness of their role, they leave the country and then put it as a condition that grant me anticipatory bail and then only I will return. As a nation, we don't bow down to such a technique....He left the country on 11 March 2024 and passport is revoked in May 2025. He had one full year to come and I will give five dates, if the matter is to be heard on merits, I am raising a preliminary issue that the proclamation of being an absconder already issued, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable...Please note, he goes to Trirupathy on 11 March with his wife with a return ticket back to Hyderabad but the moment he gets to know that an FIR has been registered, on 11 itself rather than coming back with his wife, he goes to Chennai and goes back to America-preponing his date from May to March."

In response, Naidu said that what the State is not revealing to the Court is that at the time the petitioner left for the US, he was not an accused. He said: "On the day I left the country, I wasn't an accused. My passport, within a month's time registering a crime, its [revoked]. It's hounding."

However, Justice Nagarathna continued to state that the petitioner will not be able to come unless his passport is given to him. She said: "...if they don't return, you cannot call them a fugitive.!..Though the fact is, merely because an FIR is registered and on the registration of an FIR, I am coming to know that the person leaves the shores of India, that is not a further crime...Let him come, we will keep the matter pending and the petitioner shall not leave the shores of India...Let's look it from another angle, even before any investigation is commenced against this person, you want to arrest him simply because there is an.."

SG Mehta continued to press that the Court must hear the State on maintainability. He said: "I would not like to be a party on any fraud being committed to the court and I would show that the petitioner is not maintainable. For interim order, please hear me...I am for the first time feeling that I am not being heard. Let him come and apply for regular bail."

On this, Justice Nagarathna asked if the State is willing to make a statement that the petitioner will not be arrested if he returns to India and SG Mehta replied: "No, we want to arrest him. I am making it very clear, I am not hiding it...Your Ladyship may have been given an impression that this is a political matter, allow me to remove that political impression. Allow me to show what kind of offence your ladyship is being made a party...A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. A person cannot run away and then put a condition, now allow me to come with protection...This is taking the Supreme Court on joyride."

Naidu objected to the "joyride" remark and questioned how the State can say this in a case where a person's liberty is concerned. Justice Nagarathna also added: "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."

Notably, last month the Supreme Court had granted interim protection against arrest to co-accused (A6) Aruvela Shravan Kumar–Managing Director of a Telugu media outlet, to allow him to travel from the United States to India for the purpose of investigation. Others have been granted regular bail.

Case Details: T. PRABHAKAR RAO Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA|SLP(Crl) No. 7354/2025