High Court reserves orders on Bandi Sai Bhageerath’s bail petition in POCSO case
After hearing the rival submissions, Justice K Sujana reserved the matter for orders and posted the pronouncement of the verdict to July 9
Hyderabad: Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court on Monday reserved orders on the bail petition filed by Bandi Sai Bhageerath, son of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar, in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court said the orders would be pronounced on July 9.
The bail plea arises out of a case registered by Pet Basheerabad Police on the complaint of the mother of a minor girl alleging sexual assault.
Senior Counsel T. Niranjan Reddy appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Bhageerath has been in judicial custody for over 40 days and that continued incarceration serves no purpose since the investigation is completed. He contended that the petitioner is a student whose academic career has been severely affected by the case.
Pointing out that the petitioner and the victim were known to each other and had travelled together on several occasions, he argued that the prosecution case does not warrant further custodial detention. He also relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments where bail had been granted in cases involving more serious allegations. Referring to the interim bail earlier granted to enable the petitioner to appear for his examinations, he submitted that Bhageerath had strictly complied with every condition imposed by the Court and had surrendered before the prison authorities immediately after the examinations.
Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao submitted that the investigation is at the final stage and the charge sheet is likely to be filed shortly. He argued that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage could prejudice the investigation, as there remains a possibility of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence and interfering with the investigative process.
Senior Advocate Pappu Nageshwar Rao, appearing for the complainant, also opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner’s contention that the investigation had been completed was factually incorrect. He submitted that several material witnesses are yet to be examined, particularly those connected with the alleged incidents of sexual assault.
He further argued that many of the petitioner and the victim’s common friends have not yet been examined by the investigating agency and that witnesses may be reluctant to come forward because of the political stature of the petitioner’s father. In such circumstances, he contended, grant of bail would create a real apprehension of witness intimidation and adversely affect the investigation.
After hearing the rival submissions, Justice K. Sujana reserved the matter for orders and posted the pronouncement of the verdict to July 9.
