Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21) Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of UP 37

10. Learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Uttarakhand (Nainital Bench) in Kuldeep vs. State of Uttarakhand 38 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:-

11. In the light of the said submissions, in the representation dated 19.06.2024, submitted to DGP, Telangana, 2nd respondent has stated that he received e-mail from Apple company with regard to phone tapping relating to mobile Nos.9014062471 and 95937066666. He received information on 29.08.2023. The Ex-Minister (A.1) in the previous government influenced the officials in Police Department, A.2 and his team, who concentrated on his moments and also his office at Siddipet. He contested as a Member of Legislative Assembly of Siddipet Constituency in the elections held in November, 2023, as a BSP Candidate. During the said period also, A.1 influenced the Police officials of the State and harassed him politically which disrupted A.1's political career and made 2nd respondent a political hurdle for him. Therefore, A.1, using his political influence, implicated him in (2012) 2 SCC 688 (2022) LawSuit (Utt) 477 KL,J several criminal cases and tapped his phone, harassed him mentally. A.2 and his staff, on the instructions of the petitioner/A.1, started following his conversations over phone with his wife, family members and friends in politics, and threatened them. This constant surveillance disturbed his privacy. The petitioner/A.1 and A.2 has obtained call data and taken photographs from his phone and placed them on 'You Tube' social media etc.

17. It is further stated that after general assembly elections, he came to know through print and electronic media about the news regarding phone tapping case.

18. On observing the same, he has realized that his phone Nos.9014062471 and also 0593766666 as well as his wife's phone number i.e. 9100245853 were illegally tapped and his every moment was being observed. As he has got good image, refused to join in BRS party, contested as MLA from BSP party and highlighted the illegal activities done by the petitioner/A.1 in Siddipet Constituency, A.1 bore grudge against him by abusing his power as Minister, influenced and instructed some police official to tap his phones to observe his activities and got false cases booked against him. Therefore, 2nd respondent requested the police to do justice to him. He has also submitted the hard copy of e-mail received from I-phone company to his e-mail for the purpose of investigation.