Telangana High Court To Hear Victim Before Deciding Interim Plea Of BJP Leader Bandi Sanjay's Son In POCSO Case

The Telangana High Court on Thursday (May 14) said it would hear the victim before passing orders in the interim anticipatory bail application filed by Minister of State for Home Affairs and BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar's son Bandi Sai Bageerath, who has been booked in a POCSO case.

As the counsel appearing for the victim submitted that he wanted to argue against grant of interim relief to Bageerath, Justice T Madhavi Devi orally said that she will hear will hear the counsel tomorrow and then pass orders on Bageerath's application for interim relief. The anticipatory bail petition is yet to be considered.

Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy appeared for Bageerath and pressed for interim protection. The victim's counsel opposed the plea and requested to be heard before any orders are passed.

During the hearing today, Reddy argued that the relief can be granted even while awaiting the victim's response. He claimed that the complaint against Bageerath is "completely false" and urged that an interim relief of protection from arrest be granted till the anticipatory bail plea is heard. "If they take me into custody my anticipatory bail will be infructuous," Reddy said.

The senior counsel further submitted that there is no bar against grant of anticipatory bail under POCSO Act, unlike the SC/ST Act. "Parliament did not think that anticipatory bail should be barred. Court may consider on own merits," he submitted.

He further pointed out that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of POCSO Act applies only after charges are framed, and not at stage when court is considering anticipatory bail. "Parameters will be of a regular IPC offence in anticipatory bail also," he argued.

He also stressed upon the conduct of parties, especially in the cases where the victim is older: "One feature is, it would matter a great deal to see conduct of either parties...point settled by your lordships is, in relation to POCSO if a child is...15-18 years...it would still be case of POCSO, if a case of POCSO is made out, but there conduct of victim becomes extremely relevant. Your lordships have said that it would be a mitigating factor at bail stage itself...".

He said that whenever the court hears the main matter (anticipatory bail) the petitioner would be in the meantime entitled to grant of protection.

At this juncture, the victim's counsel sought time to file a detailed counter, hear the matter at length and opposed grant of interim protection from arrest. He said that "interim protection is as equal to anticipatory bail".

"My question is you seem to have said in (bail) petition that she is not a child below 18; so are you trying to make out that it is not a POCSO case at all? If that is so, then come directly to that point where you have any evidence that she is more than 18 (years). You will also have to satisfy that how are you different and why should any interim protection be granted to you...You should show what is urgency in your case that you should be granted this…," the court orally asked Bageerath's counsel.

Reddy said, "I am not different from anyone. I'm entitled to seek your lordships indulgence as any other person who comes become this court and makes a request...there is nothing important or special about this person. This person is as common as any other person". The court then asked as to circumstances why petitioner needed protection.

He pointed out that there is scope for doubting that the victim is, in fact, a minor and also that there has been considerable delay in preferring the complaint (on May 8) since the last incident allegedly happened in December 2025.

"In a POCSO case the case is predicated on age of victim...In a chargesheet filed by police in relation to an earlier incident, police had identified age of victim about 5 years back as 15 years old. If police chargesheet is correct in underage driving case showing victim's age as 15 years at relevant time driving a car...then there is reason for court to have some suspicion if victim is a minor at the time when the alleged incident is referred....," Reddy said.

He said that the birth certificates that are placed showed different birth certificates of the victim taken from different entities and thus there was confusion regarding age of the victim.

He said that after the FIR was filed, and then the case was improved upon as the case would not come under offences having punishment of above seven years of punishment, leading to alteration of memo bring in Section 5 and 6 POCSO which are cases where punishment is above 7 years. He said that there were Supreme Court judgments which said that if there is improvement, embellishment especially with a delay then the court would have a reason to take it with great deal of suspicion.

"Allegation is alleged relationship happened in June. Two incidents happened. Last incident happened in December 2025. No complaint, FIR filed till May 8. They filed FIR on May 8, complaint said that they were weighing legal options in March 8. Complaint has full understanding of law...Even if it is taken as true, that complaint and offences alleged are all below seven years (punishment) which will not require my arrest. If there is altering of complaint thereafter, then there is clear pattern for purpose of trying to take me into custody for wrongful purpose," he said.

Meanwhile the State's counsel said that victim's mother came with a written complaint, which was registered and subsequently after taking statement from the victim the case was altered.

The victim's counsel pointed out that Bageerath is absconding and there is no urgency for granting interim bail.

"Father of boy is a Minister...how is it that his application is separate from all other applications? What is urgency? He is absconding. Its not that he is in illegal custody..." he added and sought time to argue the application as well stating that the application was not different from the main petition.

However Reddy said, "I want to join investigation. But till then…I have said I am not special…I am only special where I am victimised even before my lords renders are decision. My posters are put up in the city. Have you seen this in any other case...I don't want investigation to suffer. Grant me interim protection, I will go to police. I want to assist the process of law. I am not special. I understand victim will have to be heard, and will have to be given reasonable time".

After hearing the parties for sometime, the Court orally said that it would hear the victim's counsel and pass orders on the interim application tomorrow.

As per news reports, Bageerath has been accused by a minor girl of sexually assaulting her and a case has been registered under relevant provisions of POCSO and BNS.

Bageerath has moved the high court to grant him anticipatory bail and seeking a direction that he be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR which was registered on May 8 at Petbasheerabad Police Station. In the interim Bageerath has sought interim anticipatory bail pending consideration of the main petition.

Notably, the Telangana government has directed the State's DGP to form special teams for a comprehensive investigation into the case registered against the applicant. As per reports, Bageerath has not been arrested yet.

Case title: Bandi Sai Bageerath v/s State of Telangana

Case No: CRLP 7805/2026