The BRICS TimesThe Telangana High Court declined to shield Bandi Sai Bageerath son of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar from arrest in a POCSO case. A vacation bench reserved its final orders after a late-night hearing that stretched past midnight.
No Interim Relief for Bandi Sai Bageerath in POCSO Case
The Telangana High Court dealt a sharp blow to Bandi Sai Bageerath on Friday night. The court declined to give him interim protection from arrest a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Bageerath is the son of Bandi Sanjay Kumar the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs. After a hearing that ran from 9 PM to nearly midnight, Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the vacation bench reserved her final orders for May 21. Despite fervent requests from his legal team, the judge stood firm.
“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 stated clearly.
Late-Night Hearing Goes Past Midnight
The exhausting session covered anticipatory bail arguments stretching past 11:45 PM. Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, who argued for Bageerath, pressed the court to at least give oral directions to the police. He wanted his client protected until the final order arrived.
The judge, however, noted that the vacation bench could not convene solely for pronouncing orders. She also highlighted the seriousness of the victim’s statement which played a key role in her refusal to grant any relief.
Charges and Background of the POCSO Case
Police first registered an FIR against Bageerath on May 8 under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act. After the victim’s statement was recorded before a magistrate, authorities added aggravated sexual assault charges invoking Section 5 of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution told the court that Bageerath had been in a relationship with the minor victim since June 2025. He allegedly subjected her to sexual abuse at least four times between October and December 2025.
Defence Challenges Victim’s Age and Consent
Bageerath’s counsel Niranjan Reddy strongly denied all allegations. He argued the victim’s age was itself disputed pointing out that police had listed her as 15 years old in a chargesheet filed five years ago in an underage driving matter. He raised this to question whether the POCSO Act even applied here.
Reddy also submitted WhatsApp call logs, phone call data, and photographs all from October 2025 to January 2026 to argue that the relationship was entirely consensual. Even if there was physical contact, he said, it did not amount to penetrative assault.
He added that two earlier FIRs against Bageerath had already been quashed and that no criminal cases were currently pending against him. Reddy also assured that his client would cooperate fully with the investigation.
Victim’s Side Paints a Very Different Picture
Counsel for the victim presented an entirely different version of events. He argued that Bageerath had lured the girl then abandoned her after breaking a promise to marry her.
“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,” the complainant’s lawyer argued.
The counsel further warned the court that Bageerath’s father a sitting Union Minister was an influential figure. He flagged a real risk of evidence tampering if protection was granted.
Accused Files Counter-Complaint, Alleges Extortion
Bageerath himself had earlier filed a counter-complaint at a Karimnagar police station. He claimed the victim’s family had pressured him to marry the girl and when he refused, they allegedly demanded money. He stated he paid ₹50,000 to the girl’s father under pressure but the family later allegedly demanded ₹5 crore and threatened to file false cases against him.
Judge Flags Social Media Smear Campaign
Justice Madhavi Devi was visibly disturbed before the hearing even began. She flagged what she called a “smear campaign” on social media targeting her and her family for agreeing to hear this case. She said she was pained by the developments and noted that the city police commissioner had been informed.
The judge also asked the complainant’s counsel directly whether he had any objections to the case being heard before her bench. He replied that he had none and urged the court to proceed. She agreed to continue after that clarification.
Meanwhile, Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar obtained a separate gag order from the City Civil Court. That court restrained print, digital, television, and social media platforms from publishing allegedly defamatory content related to the POCSO case. The order extended to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and WhatsApp directing the immediate removal of all such content.
Akshay Didwaniya
Pratik Agrawal
Mayur Mohta