Published May 14, 2026 | 4:31 PM ⚊ Updated May 14, 2026 | 4:33 PM
The judge raised two pointed questions during Thursday's hearing that signal the ground on which Friday's arguments will turn.
Synopsis: The Telangana High Court reserved orders on Bandi Sai Bageerath’s interim protection plea, with the victim’s counsel set to argue before a decision on whether he faces arrest or joins the SIT probe. His lawyer claimed arrest would nullify the pending bail plea, while the prosecution cited upgraded POCSO charges and disputed the victim’s age.
The Telangana High Court took the interim protection application filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Union Minister of State for Home Bandi Sanjay Kumar on Friday, 15 May, with the victim’s counsel set to argue before the court passes orders, a hearing that will determine whether Bageerath walks into the SIT investigation with legal cover or faces immediate arrest.
The court heard arguments on Thursday, 14 May, but refused to pass any orders without first hearing the victim. It posted the matter to Friday, directing the victim’s counsel to argue on the interim application before orders pass.
The full anticipatory bail petition is scheduled for hearing next week.
His counsel, senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, placed the stakes on the table plainly during Thursday’s hearing. “I want to join investigation. But if I go in for investigation, I won’t come out,” Reddy told the court on his client’s behalf.
He argued that arresting Bhageerath while the anticipatory bail petition remains pending would render the petition infructuous — that the very purpose of approaching the court collapses if the arrest happens before the court rules.
“Grant me interim protection and I will go to police,” Reddy said.
If the court rejects interim protection on Friday, Bageerath faces the possibility of arrest the moment he appears before the SIT at Pet Basheerabad police station. If the court grants it, he gains a window to cooperate with investigators.
The judge raised two pointed questions during Thursday’s hearing that signal the ground on which Friday’s arguments will turn.
The first went to the public prosecutor, why do the sections in the FIR attract only 5 to 7 years maximum punishment, given the gravity of the allegations.
The public prosecutor responded that the sections were upgraded after the victim recorded her statement. The charges now stand at Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO, aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed repeatedly on a child, carrying a minimum of 20 years rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life or death.
Also Read: POCSO case against MoS Bandi Sanjay’s son: Silence of Congress
The second question went to the victim’s counsel, how can there be two dates of birth for the alleged victim. The court also asked for an investigation into the age of the victim and directed attention to a 2021 chargesheet filed against the girl for underage driving in Nirmal, which recorded her age as 15 at the time.
Bageerath’s counsel pushed hard to argue the case may not attract POCSO at all, on the grounds that the victim may not have been a minor during the period covered by the allegations.
Reddy cited the 2021 underage driving chargesheet, arguing it placed the victim’s age at 19 to 20 years at the time of the alleged incidents, making her an adult and POCSO inapplicable.
The judge asked directly: “You seem to have said in the petition that she is not below 18 — so are you saying it is not a POCSO case at all? If that is so, come directly to that.”
Reddy responded: “If the police chargesheet is correct in the underage driving case showing the victim’s age as 15 years at the relevant time, then there is reason for the court to have some suspicion about whether the victim is a minor.”
The victim’s counsel opposed the application, noted that Bhageerath’s father holds a ministerial position, described the accused as absconding and asked for time to file a detailed counter.
Reddy also pressed the argument that the complaint carries an eight-month gap between the earliest alleged incident and the filing of the FIR.
“The alleged relationship started in June 2025. Two incidents happened. The last incident happened in December 2025. No complaint was filed until 8 May 2026,” he argued.
He was careful to draw boundaries around how far he would press the point.
“I don’t want to vilify anyone. I am only trying to meet the allegations where I am sought to be vilified. I will not overstep my boundaries. I am only placing evidence,” he told the court.
(With inputs from Sumit Jha)
