Published Sep 21, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Sep 21, 2026 | 7:00 AM
Bageerath (right) with his father, Minister Bandi Sanjay. (Supplied)
Synopsis: Nearly two months after telling the Telangana High Court that the investigation was complete and only the filing of the chargesheet remained, police have confirmed that they filed the chargesheet in the POCSO case against Bandi Bageerath. Although it was filed nearly two weeks ago, the survivor’s family says it has not received a copy and has moved the court seeking one.
Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar, has been out on bail since July 9 in a POCSO case in which he is accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl. Police have now confirmed that the investigation has been completed and that a chargesheet has been filed before the POCSO court in Medchal-Malkajgiri.
SHO Vijaya Vardhan of Petbasheerabad Police Station, where the case was registered on May 8, told South First that the chargesheet was filed nearly 15 days ago. However, the development has not been made public so far, and the police declined to share further details about the chargesheet.
Meanwhile, sources close to the survivor’s family said they had not received a copy of the chargesheet, either officially or otherwise. This violates the terms of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2013 and the POCSO Rules 2020.
Bageerath, 25, was arrested on May 16 and spent 55 days in judicial custody before the Telangana High Court granted him regular bail on July 9. The case was registered based on a complaint by the survivor’s mother, and the charges were later upgraded from sexual harassment to aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
In the July 9 bail order, Justice K. Sujana recorded the Public Prosecutor’s submission that the investigation was almost complete, except for the filing of the chargesheet. One of the bail conditions required Bageerath to report to the Petbasheerabad SHO every Monday “for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier,” a period that would have ended in early September.
Also Read: Alwal POCSO case: Why Malkajgiri police are silent, and what we know about the investigation
Section 25(2) of the POCSO Act states that the Magistrate shall provide a copy of the document specified under section 207 of CrPC (now, 230 of BNNS) to the child, parents or their legal representative, upon the final report being filed by the police.
Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita governs the documents an accused person is entitled to, including the police report, the FIR, and witness statements, and explicitly extends the same entitlement to the victim with a stated deadline of 14 days.
The POCSO Rules, 2020, separately require investigating authorities to keep the child and the family informed as a matter of course. According to Rule 4(15), the status of the investigation of the crime and the filing of charges against a suspected offender are among the details that must be provided.
This is not the first time questions have been raised about the police’s communication or the lack thereof with the survivor’s family. Earlier in June, when Bageerath obtained interim bail to appear for examinations, the family said they were not officially informed about the developments.
At a press conference following Bageerath’s interim bail, BRS General Secretary RS Praveen Kumar alleged that the survivor’s family was being kept in the dark about the investigation and had not been given details of the evidence collected in the case. He said the family had learned about developments largely through media reports.
During the HC hearing in July, when Bageerath was granted bail, the counsel representing the survivor’s mother was unaware that the Forensic Science Laboratory report had been finalised until the public prosecutor produced it in a sealed cover before the court.
Also Read: Telangana Home Guard arrested, dismissed for assaulting woman at Hafeezpet Railway Station
The survivor’s counsel had earlier raised several concerns about the progress of the probe and the manner in which the investigation was being conducted.
While opposing Bageerath’s bail plea in July, the survivor’s counsel argued that the investigation was incomplete, despite the prosecution’s claims. They noted that crucial witnesses named by the survivor had not yet been examined.
Additionally, the counsel flagged that school records, people acquainted with both the accused and the survivor, and other circumstantial witnesses still needed to be examined. It remains unclear whether the police addressed these concerns before filing the chargesheet.
Meanwhile, BRS leader Praveen Kumar told South First that the court had allegedly rejected the chargesheet filed by the police at least 4 times.
“The police have been uncooperative ever since the beginning of the investigation. The court allegedly sent back the report 3 to 4 times. After the latest filing, they have not informed the survivor. It is the child’s right under the POCSO Act to have all the information, including the charge sheet filed by the police,” he said.
The survivor’s family filed an affidavit before the court on September 9, two months after the High Court granted Bageerath bail, seeking a copy of the chargesheet. As of the publication of this report, they are still awaiting a response.
Kukatpally DCP Riti Raj, who is heading the investigation team, was unavailable for comment.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
