Sixth accused Aruvela Shravan Kumar is presently in the US
Hyderabad:The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection to Aruvela Shravan Kumar of iNews, sixth accused in the phone-tapping case, directing the Telangana police and the investigation team not to take any harsh steps on his arrival to India.
Shravan Kumar is the managing director of the Telugu media outlet and his name was arrayed as accused on the ground that he was involved in the conspiracy. The phone-tapping operation was conducted by the BRS government, allegedly against bureaucrats and persons in judiciary. Kumar is in the USA and the state government and police have taken steps for issuing a red corner notice to him.
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had dismissed his anticipatory bail petition, following which he approached the Supreme Court.
The apex court bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, heard the special leave petition filed by him. Senior counsel Dama Sheshadri Naidu, representing Shravan Kumar, argued that the petitioner had not fled and had several times requested the investigation agency, through mails, that he was ready to come to India and to cooperate with the investigation. The
Counsel also stated that the investigation team had not sent notice to the petitioner under Section 41-A of CrPC (Section 35 of BNSS). Without following due procedure, the investigation team only wanted to arrest the petitioner and to put him in prison.
When state’s counsel objected to the proposal for protection on arrest of petitioner, the bench observed that interim protection would actually benefit the state and suggested that the extradition process should be initiated.
The court opined that as interim protection was not granted, the petitioner may not show interest to come to India, which could delay the investigation.
Naidu assured that if the interim protection is granted, his client would come to India, at the earliest. The bench granted interim protection till the next hearing (tentatively on April 28) and the petitioner must appear before the concerned investigation officer, in accordance with the time and date fixed for his appearance.
