Published Jan 31, 2026 | 10:16 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 31, 2026 | 10:16 AM
K Chandrashekar Rao. (X)
Synopsis: While acknowledging Rao’s age and the statutory provisions under Section 160 CrPC, the investigating officer noted that the agency had already offered to conduct the examination at his Hyderabad residence, as reflected in official records. However, the request to shift the examination to Erravelli village, Markook mandal, was declined.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Hyderabad police on Friday, 30 January, rejected former Chief Minister and BRS president K. Chandrashekhar Rao’s request to be examined as a witness at his Erravelli farmhouse in Siddipet district in connection with phone tapping case when the BRS was in power.
In an fresh notice dated 30 January, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jubilee Hills Division, responding to KCR’s representation on 29 January, said the request could not be considered as the venue of examination is determined based on the “ordinary place of residence as reflected in official records.”
The former chief minister has been directed to make himself available for examination at his Nandinagar residence in Hyderabad on 1 February at 3 pm, the communication added.
The communication pertains to a notice issued under Section 160 of the CrPC in connection with the phone tapping case in crime No. 243 of 2024 registered at Panjagutta police station.
The fresh notice was pasted on the wall of his Nandinagar residence, Road No: 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
According to the police, the Section 160 notice was issued at KCR’s Hyderabad address, which figures in his election affidavit and State Legislative Assembly records.
While acknowledging Rao’s age and the statutory provisions under Section 160 CrPC, the investigating officer noted that the agency had already offered to conduct the examination at his Hyderabad residence, as reflected in official records. However, the request to shift the examination to Erravelli village, Markook mandal, was declined.
The police further cited administrative difficulties in transporting sensitive electronic and physical records required for the examination to the farmhouse location. “As the examination involves reference to many electronic and physical records which are sensitive in nature, it would be administratively difficult to transport the same,” the communication said.
The case, crime No. 243 of 2024, was registered at the Panjagutta Police Station on 10 March, 2024, following allegations relating to misuse of authority, destruction of evidence, criminal conspiracy and offences under the IT Act — all related to alleged phone tapping.
While the police maintained discretion on the finer details of the investigation, the case is understood to involve digital and documentary evidence, triggering the application of cyber law alongside traditional IPC sections.
The inclusion of Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 166 (public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury) has given the case a political dimension, as it pertains to decisions allegedly taken during the previous BRS regime.
IPC Section 427 deals with mischief causing damage, while Section 201 pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence. The IT Act provisions suggest allegations linked to electronic data, digital communications, or online dissemination of material.
Police sources said the investigation has reached an advanced stage and statements from several individuals connected to the case have already been recorded. The notice to Rao is being seen as a part of routine procedural compliance to ascertain facts, rather than as an accusation.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
