Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has scheduled for Friday, orders on the interim protection application filed by Sai Bageerath, son of Union minister of state Bandi Sanjay, requesting the court to restrain the police from arresting him in a case registered against him under the BNS and the Pocso Act. Bageerath sought the interim protection till the court decided on his anticipatory bail petition, which been adjourned to next week for further hearing.
Bageerath’s counsel, pressing for interim protection from arrest, said the anticipatory bail application would become infructuous if Bageerath was arrested before the court decided on the petition.
The single bench of the vacation court headed by Justice T. Madhavi Devi heard elaborate submissions from senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the state, and counsel representing the victim before posting the interim application for orders on Friday.
Senior advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Bageerath, argued that anticipatory bail was not barred under the Pocso Act and contended that the petitioner was entitled to the same legal protection available to any ordinary citizen.
Counsel argued that the prosecution case rested on the question of the victim’s age. Referring to an earlier police chargesheet relating to a separate underage driving incident, the senior advocate submitted that the victim’s age had reportedly been shown differently in prior records. He contended that if the victim was not a minor, the invocation of Pocso Act provisions would become questionable.
He highlighted the delay in lodging the complaint, pointing out that the last alleged incident was said to have occurred in December 2025 whereas the FIR was registered on May 8, 2026. It was argued that the original complaint allegedly invoked offences carrying punishment of less than seven years in jail, and that more stringent Pocso Act provisions were subsequently added after the victim’s statement was recorded.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s order in ‘Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar’, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that arrest was not automatically warranted in offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years. The senior advocate also argued that the presumption under Section 29 of the Pocso Act would arise only after framing of charges and not at the anticipatory bail stage.
Justice Madhavi Devi, questioned the petitioner’s counsel on the urgency behind seeking interim protection and orally observed that the petitioner would have to demonstrate material supporting the contention that the victim was not a minor.
“My question is, if you are saying she is not below 18 years, then are you trying to say this is not a Pocso case at all? You will have to show what evidence you have,” the court orally remarked. The court further questioned how the petitioner was different from any other, and what was the urgency required for immediate protection.
Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy denied that Bageerath was absconding and stated that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The court was also informed that posters carrying the petitioner’s photographs had appeared across the city and that political organisations had conducted protests over the issue.
Public prosecutor Palle Nageswara Rao, appearing for the state, defended the police action and submitted that the alteration of sections became necessary after the victim’s statement was formally recorded during investigation.
Pappu Nageshwara Rao, counsel representing the victim, strongly opposed grant of interim protection and argued that the accused was evading arrest despite the seriousness of allegations. It was contended that granting interim protection at this stage would effectively amount to granting anticipatory bail itself.
In a rebuttal to the submissions that the victim was not a minor, and that had two birth certificates, counsel said that even based on the two birth certificates, the victim was aged below 18 as one birth certificate showed June 2008 as the date of birth, and August 2010 in another.
The arguments became heated when the victim`s counsel mentioned that the petitioner`s father was a Union minister and that the FIR was not registered till the night of May 8 due to political influence. The court’s intervened, and counsel also back certain words he had used against the petitioner and the process.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
