Telangana HC denies interim relief to Bandi Bageerath
Judge says order likely next week, possibly Monday Thursday
The Telangana High Court on Saturday did not pronounce its order on the interim bail petition filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, saying the bench needed time to study the voluminous material — especially the victim’s statement — before deciding. Justice T. Madhavi Devi, presiding over the vacation bench, said the verdict would come early next week, likely by Monday or Thursday.
The final hearing, held on Friday, May 15, turned into a tense courtroom drama that mixed legal argument with personal accusations and wider public scrutiny. At the outset, Justice Madhavi Devi told those present she had been the target of a social‑media smear campaign alleging she and a family member had been offered inducements to grant bail. The judge asked who in the courtroom used social media; senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing the defence, said he too had seen the fake posts but had ignored them. He urged stronger action to prevent such attacks on the judiciary.
Reddy mounted a detailed defence for Bandi Sai Bageerath, arguing that Indian courts have granted interim bail in POCSO cases before and that the judiciary has inherent power to do so in appropriate circumstances. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he told the bench that the victim’s age alone should not constrain bail considerations at the interlocutory stage.
Much of Reddy’s argument relied on the complaint filed by the girl’s mother at Pet Basheerabad police station on May 8, 2026. He said the relationship between his client and the minor began in June 2025 and that the complaint described four alleged incidents between October and December 2025 at various locations, including a farmhouse party on December 31. To challenge the prosecution’s narrative, he produced chat logs showing cordial exchanges between the two in the hours before and after the alleged incidents, and videos from the party that, he said, showed the girl consuming alcohol and socialising.
Reddy questioned how a person who had allegedly lost consciousness after drinking could later recall an exact sequence of events in the early hours of January 1. He noted that the couple continued to communicate after the farmhouse incident and that his client had ended the relationship on January 7. He also pointed out alleged delays and apparent inconsistencies in the timing and framing of the complaint, noting the family filed the FIR only on May 8 and later “improved” the charges to include more serious sections under POCSO, which carry far heavier penalties. Reddy suggested these changes amounted to abuse of process and could have been designed to prevent his client from obtaining relief from arrest.
He further raised questions about claims of self‑harm by the victim, saying those episodes on January 19 and 26 were not backed by contemporaneous records. Reddy also invoked past recommendations — including the Justice Varma Commission and the Law Commission — that debated lowering the age threshold for certain offences, and cited a 2024 Andhra Pradesh High Court order that urged courts to consider adolescent psychology in similar cases.
The prosecution disputed the defence’s framing. The complainant’s counsel said the Supreme Court judgements cited by Reddy did not, in practice, guarantee bail in POCSO matters — and in many cited instances high courts had rejected such pleas. He argued custodial interrogation could be essential to a proper investigation, warning that releasing the accused on interim bail might impede evidence collection.
Tensions in court grew further when the victim’s lawyer alleged a counter‑complaint lodged by the accused in Karimnagar — accusing the victim’s family of extortion and honey‑trapping — was part of a broader pattern of pressure. He also claimed that some information about a prior rash‑driving case involving the girl had been used opportunistically and suggested political influence had been attempted to shape reactions. The counsel pointed to public remarks by the accused’s father, a union minister, as indicative of the fraught political backdrop.
Justice Madhavi Devi’s careful response — delaying judgment to review the full record and the victim’s statement — underscored the gravity of the issues: balancing the rights of the accused with the protection of a minor, scrutinising procedural fairness, and ensuring the integrity of the court against outside pressure. For the family of the victim and for the accused, the coming days will be fraught; both await the bench’s decision, and both know that the courtroom’s choice will shape not only legal outcomes but personal lives.