Late-night hearing: Telangana HC refuses to grant Union Minister's son interim protection from arrest in POCSO case

The Telangana High Court on Friday refused to grant interim protection from arrest to Bandi Sai Bageerath, the son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. .After a hearing that ran late into the night, a vacation Bench comprising Justice T Madhavi Devi reserved its verdict in Bageerath's anticipatory bail application.However, the Court rejected a plea to protect Bageerath from arrest until the verdict is pronounced, despite fervent requests by his counsel."I don’t think I should be granting any interim order at this stage... I have gone through statement of the victim and after going through that, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant any interim order," the judge said..The Court began hearing the matter around 9 PM in the evening. As the hearing drew to a close past 11.30 PM, the judge said that she had planned to pass orders in the matter today but would need time to consider the detailed submissions made by counsel. "I thought of passing of order today but with so much material...," said Justice Devi. .Bageerath was booked on May 8 under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act. After the victim’s statement was recorded before a magistrate, he was also booked for aggravated sexual assault as defined under Section 5 of POCSO Act.Bageerath is stated to have been in a relationship with the victim since June 2025. On Thursday, the Court was told that he sexually abused the victim at least four times between October and December 2025.Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy, who represented Bageerath, denied the allegations. Yesterday, he argued that the victim's age was disputed as the police itself had identified her age as 15 years in a chargesheet filed five years ago in an underage driving case. He, therefore, questioned if the alleged victim was a minor and if the POCSO case would stand. .Today's hearing.Today, Reddy reiterated that the accused and the victim had been in a consenusal relationship. He added that the victim underwent some mental distress after Bageerath broke up with her."In relation to each incidents, prior and after, the (victim) was in cordial communication. They spoke through the night. None of the messages will show there was any issue...None of the allegations make allegation of penetrative assault in the complaint. He terminated the relationship in January... This complaint was filed on May 8, four months after he broke relationship," submitted Reddy..He further argued that the allegations of penetrative sexual assault were not part of the initial police complaint and were added later to frame Bageerath in a false case."8th May complaint is product of contemplation, reflection and legal information. There is no allegation of penetrative sexual assault in it...After FIR is filed, they give a further statement," he said."Is it voluntarily given?" the Court asked."Court may view it with a great deal of suspicion. There is a huge jump in terms of gravity ... There is deliberate attempt to frame me. It may amount to abuse of process," replied Reddy.He went on to urge the Court to grant Bageerath protection from arrest."Anticipatory bail is not allowing someone to go scot free...I am fully willing to subject myself to investigation. This is a false case," he said..The Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed the anticipatory bail plea. As arguments progressed, the Court observed that it is not disputed that there was a relationship in the past between Bhageerath and the victim. In response, the PP maintained that she was still a minor, aged 17 years at present. "He is not entitled to bail," he asserted. The complainant's (victim's mother) counsel also opposed the grant of any such relief to Bageerath. He told the Court that Bageerath had backtracked on a promise to marry the victim. He went on to submit that after a particular date with Bageerath, the minor victim was sexually abused."They planned to get married. Obviously when you plan to marry, there are so many things you communicate. Subsequently he refuses to marry. The trust was there because they planned to marry. What she tells me - 'once in a while, we go and drink', but on this particular day, she was completely zoned out. And the next day morning when she gets up, she's completely naked. She was forcibly subjected to physical acts. She couldn’t resist, a minor in vulnerable situation. She has told everything. In such situation, can Court grant anticipatory bail? In this case, there is strong prima facie case. Therefore the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise," the counsel contended. He added that there was attempts to pressure the complainant to withdraw the case, and a strong likelihood of evidence tampering if Bageerath is protected from arrest."Person (Bageerath's father, Bandi Sanjay Kumar) is heading Home Ministry at Centre. They (police) will oblige and give information... They (accused and his family) were putting pressure on them (victim's family) to withdraw the matter even before the complaint was lodged. The boy’s father is Member of Parliament from Karim Nagar. FIR was lodged there.There was a meeting. I don't want to say what he said, but he ridiculed her. Indirectly they seemed to have threatened. What will be fear in mind of victim if he comes out? The way he is speaking on TV, it looks like Hitler is talking. There is fear instilled. What will society think if bail is granted?" he argued. "Court should not be thinking what society will think. Court will look at law," replied Justice Devi.The counsel also indicated relations between the two deteriorated."He says I love you I love you. She doesn’t reply. She says Bye... then die she says," the counsel said."These are filmy dialogues," the Court observed.."My respectful submission is, this case doesn’t deserve anticipatory bail. He is not first time offender. There are two FIRs against him," the complainant's counsel went on to argue. "They have nothing to do with this case," said the Court"To my knowledge there are four other girls. They are scared. I don’t know truth or otherwise of it," the counsel replied. "Those cases have been quashed," Reddy pointed out. In his rejoinder, Reddy also challenged the claim that his client could tamper with evidence if given any relief since he came from an influential background."Political opponents are trying to go after me. If there was influence, there wouldn’t be improvement (in complaint). Law and order is State, not my party. Circumstances show if (Bageerath's) father had used influence, it would not have worked in this manner," he said. .Police to take action against smear campaign on social media Notably, the Court today also took a dim view of comments made about the case on social media. The judge particularly referred to the posts uploaded against her. "How many of you are on social media. There has been smear campaign on social media. I am pained. There are imputations," Justice Devi said. "These people need to be taken to task. PP should take note. We as the Bar have to stand. It is really painful," Senior Advocate Reddy replied.The Public Prosecutor informed that the Hyderabad police has been informed of it and would be taking action. "I am not shying away from hearing this matter. I will pass order. I would like to know from complainant side if he (complainant's counsel) has reservations," the judge added.The Court proceeded to hear the matter after the complainant's counsel said that he had no objections to Justice Devi dealing with the case. .[Live Coverage]