Bandi Sai Bageerath (left), Telangana High court (right)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(More details will be added to this report shortly)
This post was last modified on May 16, 2026 1:16 am