Former intelligence chief Anjaneyulu arrested in model harassment case
Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh Home Minister Vangalapudi Anitha on Tuesday said former intelligence chief PSR Anjaneyulu has been arrested in connection with a case involving the alleged harassment of Mumbai-based actor-model Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani.
Anjaneyulu is one of the three IPS officers who are under suspension for allegedly "hastily arresting" and "harassing" Jethwani without proper investigation in a case filed against her during the erstwhile YSRCP regime.
Vishal Gunni and Kanthi Rana Tata are the other two IPS officers.
According to the home minister, seven people are accused in Jethwani's case. YSRCP leader Kukkala Vidyasagar has already been arrested in connection with this case.
"Today, former intelligence chief Anjaneyulu has also been arrested in this matter . We are going ahead transparently. Without evidence, department officials will not proceed for any action. After gathering all the evidence, we are taking some action," the minister told a news channel.
Asserting that there is no need for the TDP-led NDA government to trouble anybody, Anitha said that whoever has committed mistakes would have to be punished.
Referring to Anjaneyulu, she noted that some officials are facing consequences of the actions they did during the previous YSRCP government.
She alleged that some officials had worked to win the favour and appreciation of former CM, ministers and political leaders.
Recalling the imprisonment of senior IAS officer Yerra Srilakshmi, who was arrested for alleged graft during the united Andhra Pradesh era, Anitha questioned why officials working under the YSRCP government face charges, but not under TDP government.
"Even we were in opposition several times. We were booked, but no official was subjected to any hardship because of us. We can vouch for it. But why officials, who worked under your government are being required to stand before the law for committing mistakes? You have to introspect it," she said.
Anitha claimed that some officials are facing "difficulties" now because they allegedly obeyed the erstwhile YSRCP government to commit "mistakes."
Further, she observed that Jethwani reposed faith in the southern state's police department and the NDA alliance government to lodge a complaint, which eventually led to a probe "uncovering the role of some IPS officers in her harassment, leading to their suspension".
Meanwhile, visuals of Anjaneyulu, who was brought from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, went viral.
Early on Tuesday, Andhra Pradesh CID Police arrested Anjaneyulu from Hyderabad.
Before the home minister confirmed the case leading to Anjaneyulu's arrest, top police officials and sources remained tight-lipped about the development.
A section of media houses, besides the ruling TDP, claimed that Anjaneyulu had been "arrested."
"IPS officer PSR Anjaneyulu has been arrested for harassing a woman under the directions of Jagan Reddy, mobilising the entire government machinery," said TDP in a post on 'X'.
Working as the intelligence chief during the erstwhile YSRCP government, Anjaneyulu toed YS Jagan Mohan Reddy's line, TDP alleged and claimed that harassing a woman is a "known fact".
According to TDP, the previous government used all its might to subdue a woman and compel her to "submit" but asserted that the TDP-led government is doing "justice" to her now.
Anjaneyulu, former Vijayawada Police Commissioner Tata and Gunni, then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, were suspended last year after an inquiry revealed their role in the alleged harassment of the model.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
30 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
Bengaluru stampede: Sidda's political secretary sacked
Bengaluru: The political secretary of Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah, K Govindraju, has been sacked, and the state intelligence department head, Hemant Nimbalkar, has been transferred over the Bengaluru stampede that claimed 11 lives. Govindraju is also the head of the state Olympic association and the key person who pressured the Chief Minister to hold the RCB victory event at Vidhana Soudha. The Karnataka government has taken several steps in the wake of the unfortunate incident, including the filing of FIRs against the representatives of Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB). A political row has also erupted in the state with the BJP accusing the Congress-led state government of making the police a 'scapegoat" in the incident. Hitting back, Siddaramaiah on Friday criticised the saffron regiment for politicising the stampede at Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium. The CM stated that action was taken against officials who were found to be 'visibly responsible" and 'negligent in their duty." 'They are doing it for politics. I don't do politics. We have taken action against those who were visibly responsible and found to be negligent in their duty," he said.
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
Musk calls for impeachment of Trump
Washington: Amid the brewing tensions between US President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the tech billionaire called for the impeachment of the Republican firebrand. He went ahead, saying US Vice President JD Vance should replace Trump in the Oval Office, leaving many shocked. Musk's remarks came in response to an X post demanding the impeachment of the 47th President of the United States. 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon." 'Trump should be impeached, and JD Vance should replace him,' Ian Miles Cheong, a Malaysia-based right-wing writer, said in a post on Thursday afternoon. 'Yes,' Musk said in response to Cheong's post about 20 minutes later. The brief friendship between Musk and Trump nose-dived into an abyss due to a disagreement over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', which pushes for tax cuts and other spending measures. Things escalated quickly after Musk claimed that Trump is part of the Epstein Files, calling it the reason why it is not being fully released. While speaking to reporters at the Oval Office, Trump narrated the downfall of his and Musk's friendship, with many calling it a therapy session rather than a meeting with a foreign leader. He recalled Musk's farewell press conference and mentioned how the billionaire stood next to the President with a black eye. 'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, You want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup,' Trump said. 'But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is.' Interestingly, at that time, Musk was facing reports of drug use during his time as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump also mentioned that he could understand why Musk was upset with some steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the NASA space agency who was supported by the tech tycoon. The POTUS was narrating this saga while sitting in front of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who had no other option but to sit silently through it all. At the heart of the Trump-Musk feud is the 'big, beautiful bill' on tax and spending. The centrepiece of his domestic agenda, it aims to continue tax cuts from his first term and is being touted as the make-or-break bill for Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk slammed the bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday, because it will increase the US deficit. A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to 'kill the bill,' and for an alternative plan that 'doesn't massively grow the deficit.'
