Telangana HC refuses to grant Bandi Bageerath intermin relief in POCSO case

Justice T Madhavi Devi stated that the order would be pronounced as early as possible during the next week, either by Monday, or by Thursday

Hyderabad: The judgement in the interim bail petition filed by Bandi Bageerath at the Telangana High Court’s vacation bench may have to wait for a few more days, as the single-bench headed by Justice T Madhavi Devi declined to pronounce any orders before going through the voluminous information shared by both the parties, especially the statement of the victim.

The bench stated that the order would be pronounced as early as possible during the next week, either by Monday, or by Thursday.

The final hearing on the interim bail petition filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against him was held at the Telangana High Court’s vacation bench by Justice T Madhavi Devi on Friday, May 15.

Smear campaign against the judge on social media

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Madhavi Devi sought to know from those present in the courtroom as to how many were on the social media. She informed those present, that there has been a smear campaign against her and a family member of hers, claiming that she was offered something from someone to issue the orders for the interim bail.

Senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy responded by saying that such fake news was also shared with him, but he chose to just ignore it. He was of the opinion that this was the situation prevailing across the country, and some strict action needs to be done to prevent such attribution to the judiciary.

The defense counsel’s arguments

Senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy who represented the defendant Bandi Bageerath argued that giving interim bail in offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (penetrative assault) have not been foreign to the judicial system in India, and that the courts had the inherent authority to grant bail in various offences including in the POCSO cases.

He cited various judgements of the Supreme Courts to prove his point. He contended that at the stage of bail, the court shouldn’t be constrained by the age of the victim.

In support of the defendant, Reddy made most of his arguments based on the complaint filed by the victim’s mother at the Pet Basheerabad Police Station on May 8, 2026.

Referring to the complaint, he said that since the relationship between his client and the said minor girl began in June 2025, there were 4 alleged incidents as reported by the victim’s mother to the police- on October/November 2025 in the basement of the victim’s house, on October 25 at Golf View resorts, on November 13 at a farmhouse in Moinabad, and the final one being on December 31, 2025 at Ananya Farms in Moinabad.

Victim and accused shared cordial relations before, after incidents

He submitted to the court various chat message exchanges between the two individuals, where “they were found to be sharing cordial relations” 8-10 hours before and after each of the alleged incidents.

He argued that the minor girl was the one who actively selected the destinations where she wanted to go in some of these incidents, including purchasing tickets to a film which she had shared with his client.

He also stated that on October 25 she was accompanied by 2 other friends, and on December 31, she was accompanied by 5 boys and 2 girls.

Defense’s claim on victim’s alcohol consumption

He also presented the video clips of the minor girl from the farmhouse party on December 31 and other occasions, where he alleged that she was not only actively consuming alcohol, but was also giving it to others to consume.

He also claimed that on December 30, 2025, the girl had sent a message to the accused, informing him that the Telangana Excise Department had given permission for the sale of liquor on the eve of New Year.

“During these days where the victim’s mother made allegations, the girl was in free communication with her family members. She chose to stay away,” Reddy noted.

How can a person who passed-out remember exact sequence of events

He questioned how could the victim, who consumed breezer and lost her consciousness on December 31, only to regain it the next day, remember every action of the defendant including the alleged assault on her between 1.30 and 2.30 am on the intervening night of December 31 and January 1, 2026, as alleged by the mother of the victim in her statement.

After the farmhouse incident, on January 7, 2026, Reddy claimed that the accused terminated his relationship with the girl, even after which there was communication between the two. He questioned why the girl didn’t complain to her parents till January 7.

Reddy stated that on January 3, his client hadn’t picked up any calls from the girl, and on January 5, the girl sent him the pictures of her with him on December 31.

He also informed the bench that on January 13, Bageerath called the girl’s mother only to inform her to ensure her protection as she could be distressed, and not for anything else.

“The prosecution may have a different version of this, but it can be investigated at a later stage. I’m only bringing this up for the purpose of interim protection of the defendant,” he clarified.

Reddy argued that the victim’s mother’s complaint which alleged that she tried to take her own life by consuming stuff like Dettol solution and Crocin tablets was backed up by any formal records (as in police complaints) during those incidents of self-harm on January 19 and 26, 2026.

Victim’s family well aware, legally advised, but missed one point

He also argued that the girl’s family which seemed well aware of the legal provisions and the legal remedies as seen in her mother’s complaint, where the family was well advised legally.

“When they were so well informed, how did they miss such a simple legal aspect that after full 4 months after the alleged incident on December 31, they lodged the complaint on May 8, with Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act which impose punishment of less than 5 years of imprisonment,” he asked.

He also sought to know why the improvements were made to include more serious Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act after the statements were recorded by the victim later, pushing the imprisonment term right from 5 to 20 years or more.

He said it was an abuse of the process of law, and a criminal intent, and a contrivance for bringing it under the crimes under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act’s nature, so that his client couldn’t avail any relief from arrest.

Reminding that the girl was away from her home for 3 days and 4 nights, Reddy alleged that the parents trusted their child, which was their judgement and confidence in the maturity of their child.

Defense cites earlier recommendations on minor’s age

Also observing that a false promise of marriage could be a case for cheating, he said the wrong application of POCSO case has been studied by the Justice Varma Commission of 2013, which had recommended bringing down the age of a minor from 18 to 16, and that the Law Commission had also made similar recommendations- which were not accepted.

He also cited an AP High Court’s order from 2024, where it was stated that in such cases, the teenage psychology and adolescent love needed to be scrutinized, where the conduct of the accused is considered.

He also spoke about the ways through which the date of birth of an accused under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act of 2015 could be ascertained, which could be used to know the age of the said victim in the present POCSO case.

The prosecution’s arguments

The counsel appearing for the complainant/minor downplayed the defendant’s counsel’s argument that the Supreme Court has granted interim bail in such cases.

“In the three Supreme Court judgements being cited by the defendant’s counsel, the high courts had rejected the bail pleas in POCSO cases. However, the Supreme Court is absolute. The sky is the limit. They try to boss over the High Courts.The Supreme Court acted on its own wisdom in those cases,” he noted.

He also cited a Supreme Court’s judgement stating that custodial interrogation was compulsory for more eliciting information, without which a well-prepared and insulated investigation of an accused would only reduce the investigation to a mere ritual.

Someone in police tried to please union minister: victim’s counsel

He also questioned why there was a counter-blast to the POCSO case filed by the victim’s mother, in Karimnagar, where the accused had filed a case of extortion and honey trap by the minor girl and her family members.

“How did they get information about the rash driving case against the girl in Nirmal district from 2021? Even I didn’t know about that. Somebody gave that idea to them,” the victim’s advocate stated, alleging that somehow the ministry of home affairs was informed about the complaint that was being filed by the victim’s mother at Pet Basheerabad police station, “just to please the politically powerful.”

He also pointed out how the defendant’s father, a union minister, had been addressing public meetings, talking like the “Hitler” and saying how “many people died for him.”

On the defense counsel’s argument against the “improvement” in the sections imposed after the victim’s statement on May 13, much after the police registered the First Information Report (FIR) on May 8, the victim’s counsel stated that the girl may have been scared of either the mother or both the parents, due to which she only spoke out before the Bharosa Centre, as even the father of the victim was not inclined to pursue the case.

Victim returned accused’s money immediately, repeatedly

On the allegation against the victim that the defendant had sent Rs 50,000 into her account on March 17, her counsel claimed that though he had sent her money repeatedly, immediately she returned that amount back to him, which has been recorded in the bank transactions.

“To the accused’s messages of “I Love You, I Love You, I Love You,” the girl replied saying “Bye-Po-Die,” he said, drawing laughter in the courtroom.

The victim’s counsel alleged that the accused induced, used, and dumped the victim.

How can there be consensus between the accused a minor victim

“How can there be consensus between them? How can he set his eyes on a minor,” he asked, also noting that it has come to his notice that 4 more girls were also victimised by the accused, and that nobody could help them unless they went to the police station to lodge a complaint.

He argued that the accused, being the son of the union minister, could tamper with the evidence and intimidate the victim’s family, if let to roam freely.

On the other hand, the defendant’s counsel pleaded with the bench that if his client who wanted to cooperate with the investigation was arrested before his anticipatory bail was heard, no purpose of the case will be solved.

On hearing both sides of the argument, Justice Madhavi Devi was of the opinion that having recorded the fresh statement of the victim, and having to go through voluminous information presented by both the parties, she needed a little time to pronounce the order- early next week.