IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court denied bail based on the gravity of the offences and the need for further investigation, emphasizing the misuse of official capacity by intelligence officials.

ORDER :

(Juvvadi Sridevi, J.) :

Petitioner/accused No.4 has filed this petition under Sections 480 and 483 r/w 187 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking bail in Crime No.243 of 2024 of P.S. Panjagutta. The offences alleged are under Sections 166, 409, 427, 201, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 and Sections 65, 66, 66(F) (1) (B) (2) & 70 of The Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. Heard Sri V.Surender Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.4 and Sri Palle Nageshwara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Case of the prosecution is that petitioner/accused No.4 has worked in the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) from December, 2021 to December, 2023 and was in-charge of Urban Front Team in the SIB, being assisted by three Inspectors, one RSI, one ARSI, 5 HCs and 10 Constables. He used to discharge his duties from the first floor of SIB building. It is stated that the SIB is a Specialized Intelligence Agency established exclusively for the purpose of collection of intelligence on the banned CPI (Maoist) party and other affiliated organizations in the State to protect the Society from the dangers of violent activities of the said banned outfit. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.4, instead of collecting the intelligence information relating to Maoist activities, he, under the leadership of accused No.1 Sri T.Prabhakar Rao, IPS retired and who was working as Chief of Operations of SIB and also the other accused in the crime, directed his subordinates to collect the information relating to several politicians and common people and also the Judges of this Court for the benefit of the then Ruling BRS Party. The information thus collected by the petitioner/accused No.4 and the other accused in the crime has been used by the then ruling political party during the General Elections of 2023.

4. The further case of the prosecution is that after general elections of 2023 when the results were declared and the ruling party was defeated, all the accused persons in the crime have conspired together and destroyed the hard disks of the computer systems in the SIB apprehending that their illegal activities will be known to the party coming into power. The main case of the prosecution is that valuable intelligence data collected over Decades was there in the hard disks and such valuable information was lost due to the acts of the accused persons destroying the hard disks, posing threat to the safety and security of the State as well as the Country.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein was arrested on 24.03.2024 and was taken into custody from 29.03.2024 to 02.04.2024 vide orders of the trial Court and on interrogation, the petitioner/accused No.4 has confessed to have committed the offences alleged, and therefore, his confession statement was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses and at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.4, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the SIB Office and seized the computer systems and laptops used by the petitioner and his team, upon which it came to light that hard disks of those systems were replaced with new ones after destroying the old ones.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged developing of profiles of persons, monitoring of communications of such persons, unauthorized transfer of electronic data and destruction of electronic storage devices. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner/accused No.4 has discharged his duties as per the directions of accused No.1/the then Chief of Operations of the SIB and he never took his independent decisions. It is stated that the grounds of arrest as well as relevant documents were not furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest on 24.