Former BRS MP Santosh Kumar Appears Before SIT in Phone Tapping Case

Hyderabad: Former BRS MP Joginipally Santosh Kumar appeared before SIT in connection with the phone tapping case on Tuesday.

SIT investigation officer and ACP P. Venkatagiri served a notice on Santosh Kumar under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and directed him to appear for an inquiry in connection with an ongoing phone-tapping investigation.

Sources in SIT disclosed that during the course of the investigation, it became apparent that Santosh Kumar was aware of certain facts related to the phone-tapping case, necessitating his examination. Police officials said that the investigation was in progress and further action will be taken based on the outcome of the inquiry.

The investigation gained momentum after the government appointed a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by Hyderabad police commissioner V.C. Sajjanar on December 21 to interrogate former SIB chief and prime accused T. Prabhakar Rao.

The SIT had questioned BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao on January 23 and senior party leader T. Harish Rao on January 20. The investigating team had also questioned senior bureaucrats during the BRS government. On January 8, it questioned BRS former legislator G Jaipal Yadav and party former MLC K. Chirumurthi Lingiah, in the presence of former SIB ASP M. Tirupathanna, for over two hours separately.

The SIT’s technical and cyber team retrieved call records indicating frequent communication between Harish Rao and other accused, including Prabhakar Rao, Radhakishan Rao and G. Praneeth Rao.

The case was booked by SIT based on a complaint filed by G. Chakradhar Goud of Siddipet district with the Panjagutta police for criminal breach of trust, causing disappearance of evidence after committing offence, giving false information to investigation agency, screenng an offender. public servant knowingly disobeying law, mischief causing damage, crimes committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention and damaging/destroying government property.

The case was booked under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, and Sections 65, 66, 66(F)(1)(B)(2) and 70166, 409, 427, 201 and 120(B) read with 34 of the IPC of the Information Technology Act.