The Telangana High Court on Friday refused to grant interim relief to Bandi Sai Bhagirath, son of a central minister from the state, in connection with a case registered in Hyderabad under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act over allegations of sexual molestation of a minor girl, people familiar with the matter said.
A leave bench of the Supreme Court, Justice T Madhavi Devi, who heard arguments till midnight, refused to pass any immediate protection from arrest while reserving its order on Bhagirath’s anticipatory bail petition and said the ruling would be delivered on May 21.
During the hearing, senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, representing Bhagirath, urged the court to grant protection from arrest at least till the anticipatory bail application is decided. He emphasized that the petitioner was willing to cooperate fully with the police investigation. However, the authority clarified that it is not inclined to issue any interim directives at this stage.
Reddy stressed that the complaint filed by the girl’s parents at Bait Bashirabad police station was filed only after obtaining extensive legal advice. A close reading of the complaint did not reveal any allegations that constitute penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, he said.
He said police then added “in bad faith” the section on penetrative sexual assault. The lawyer further argued that the petitioner and the girl were in a relationship and that her parents were aware of their relationship. He also noted that the complaint relates to events that allegedly occurred last year and was filed after significant delay.
Referring to allegations that the case was diluted because Bhagirat’s father is a Union minister, Reddy said the ruling party in the state was politically opposed to the Union minister and law and order remained under the control of the state government. He wondered how the Union Minister, who is not in power in the state, could influence the investigation.
He alleged that the FIR initially contained only bailable offenses and that later more serious sections were deliberately added. The counsel said the petitioner’s arrest would cause him irreparable harm and hence he was entitled to anticipatory bail.
While appearing before the state government and police, public prosecutor Bali Nageshwar Rao opposed the anticipatory bail application. He rejected the argument that the survivor was a pioneer and told the court that the documentary evidence, including her date of birth and tenth grade note, had been submitted in a sealed cover.
The public prosecutor said that the survivor was born in 2008 and is currently 17 years and three months old. He said the investigating officers collected comprehensive evidence and the seriousness of the allegations became clear only after the victim’s statement was recorded, which led to the inclusion of the charge of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
“The FIR is just a preliminary document and not an encyclopedia. The complete facts emerge during the investigation,” the public prosecutor said, adding that anticipatory bail or protection from arrest should not be granted in such a serious case.
Senior advocate Babu Nageshwar Rao, representing the survivor, made further allegations against Bhagirath, alleging that he had molested four other girls and that they too would come forward in due course. He alleged that Bhagirat’s father was using his influence to divert the investigation and that mediation attempts were made through a person named Sanjappa.
The survivor’s lawyer also alleged that on January 1, the girl woke up in a farm without clothes and claimed that the petitioner made her drink alcohol. He said the delay in filing a POCSO complaint was not uncommon or legally significant. He also claimed that the local police took action only after a counter case was filed in Karimnagar and after the Chief Minister personally monitored the matter.
Additionally, the lawyer claimed that two FIRs had previously been registered against Bhagirath and said he was not a first-time offender.
After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Devi reserved her judgement and refused to grant any interim relief to Bhagirat.
