Bandi Bageerath withdraws bail plea in POCSO case.
Withdrawal came before High Court’s crucial bail order hearing.
Bandi Sai Bageerath withdrew his anticipatory bail petition from the Telangana High Court on Wednesday, May 20, after his arrest in a POCSO case that has gripped local headlines and put a spotlight on power, privilege and legal process. The petition’s withdrawal — filed by his counsel, N Naveen Kumar — was entered as a memo before the court registry, which listed the matter for formal withdrawal on Thursday, May 21. The move came one day before the High Court was due to pronounce its order on the bail plea.
The long-running petition had already drawn intense judicial scrutiny. Justice T Madhavi Devi, who presided over marathon hearings that stretched into the night on May 15, refused to grant interim protection from arrest. The judge said she was not inclined to pass an interim order at that point, leaving Bageerath exposed to police action. Counsel for the accused had urged the court to exercise its inherent powers to grant interim bail until a final decision, arguing that such protection was appropriate while the plea was pending. That request was ultimately turned down.
The facts of the case are stark and sensitive. A complaint filed on May 8 at Pet Basheerabad Police Station alleged that Bageerath had been in a relationship with a 17-year-old girl and had sexually harassed her. The FIR was registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act; after the victim’s statement was recorded, more stringent POCSO provisions were invoked. The POCSO designation makes the matter especially grave in the eyes of the law and society, as it involves alleged sexual offences against a minor and activates mandatory protective procedures.
Opposing the grant of interim relief, counsel for the victim warned the court that Bageerath’s family connections — his father is Union minister Bandi Sanjay — raised the risk of evidence tampering and undue influence. That argument appears to have weighed with the court during the May 15 hearing. The spectre of influence is a recurring concern in high-profile cases, and victims’ advocates often stress that perceived power imbalances can undermine investigation integrity and witnesses’ willingness to speak.
A day after the midnight hearings, on May 16, Telangana Police arrested Bageerath. The arrest shifted the case from courtroom manoeuvring to custody and investigation, clarifying why the defence team opted to withdraw the anticipatory bail plea after an arrest had already taken place.
Bageerath has lodged a counter-complaint in Karimnagar, alleging that the girl’s family had pressured him to marry her and later demanded money, threatening to file false accusations when he resisted. He claims he paid Rs 50,000 to the girl’s father under duress, and that the family later sought Rs 5 crore. Such counter-allegations are not uncommon in cases involving interpersonal disputes; however, courts and investigators must parse these competing claims carefully, given the POCSO framework and the need to protect minors.
Beyond legal filings and courtroom theatrics, the case has a broader human dimension. There are three sets of people at the heart of this story: the victim, a minor, whose privacy and welfare the law seeks to protect; the accused and his family, who face social stigma and legal jeopardy; and the investigators and judiciary, tasked with balancing a fair process against public concern. Each move in court — a late-night hearing, an interim order refused, a petition withdrawn — ripples through these lives.
With the anticipatory bail petition withdrawn, the immediate legal question shifts to the course of the police investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings. The POCSO-specific procedures — from recording the victim’s statement to court protections for a minor — will shape how evidence is collected and presented. Meanwhile, Bageerath remains in the hands of law enforcement, and the court may hear fresh applications as the case progresses.
The unfolding matter is likely to continue attracting public attention, partly due to the political profile of those involved. Still, the law’s priority in such cases remains the protection of the child and an impartial investigation. As the legal process moves forward, the difficult task will be to ensure that both justice and the rights of those concerned are preserved amid intense scrutiny.