POCSO case: Telangana High Court hears Bandi Bageerath bail petition
The Telangana High Court vacation bench on Thursday admitted the anticipatory bail plea of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay’s son, Sai Bageerath, accused in a POCSO case. Justice T. Madhavi Devi posted the matter to Friday after heated arguments between counsels.
By Our Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court vacation bench on Thursday took on file the anticipatory bail application filed by Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Bandi Sanjay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs. Sai Bageerath, is an accused person in a POCSO case registered in Pet Basheerabad Police Station on May 8 on charges of sexually abusing a 17-year-old minor girl.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi posted the matter to Friday for hearing the application seeking interim protection pending consideration of the anticipatory bail plea next week.
While the petitioner’s side urged the Court to grant immediate protection against coercive steps, the victim side strongly opposed the plea, arguing that sufficient time was required to respond to the application. The courtroom witnessed sharp exchanges between the counsels appearing for Bageerath and the victim.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi, who was presiding over the bench, warned that she would recuse herself from the matter and direct it to be placed before another bench if the counsels failed to maintain courtroom decorum and brought their anxiety to spill into the proceedings. The Judge observed that counsels should not take their clients’ cases personally.
It may be recalled that the usual procedure adopted by courts while hearing bail applications is to grant the prosecution time to obtain instructions and respond to the matter. In cases involving offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, notice is also issued to the victim. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Court enquired about service of notice upon the victim.
Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao informed the Court that the victim’s family had been informed about the bail application on Thursday morning. However, the counsel appearing for the victim submitted that copies of the petition had not even been served upon him.
Justice Madhavi Devi questioned senior counsel Niranjan Reddy as to why the Court should hear the petitioner’s plea for interim protection immediately.
“How are you different from others, when the same courtesy of hearing interim applications is not extended to everyone?” the Judge asked, further questioning why the petitioner should be treated differently.
In response, Reddy submitted that the petitioner was not different from any other citizen and was only seeking interim relief in accordance with law. He further submitted that courts had exercised such inherent powers in certain cases and that the same had been upheld by the apex court.
The Court further questioned what made the case special. Counsel for Bageerath contended that the entire case was false. He argued that the victim was not a minor, pointing to a chargesheet filed in an earlier case relating to minor’s driving in which her age was allegedly shown as 15 years around five years ago.
He further argued that there were discrepancies in the birth certificates placed on record, raising doubts regarding her minor status. The counsel also contended that the victim’s conduct showed that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner and had participated in events with him in the presence of groups of people. He further alleged that there were improvements made in the version contained in the initial complaint.
The counsel argued that the FIR was initially registered for offences punishable with imprisonment below seven years, and that later, based on alleged improvements in the complaint, graver offences carrying punishment above seven years were added. He further submitted that the complaint itself had been lodged after a delay of four-and-a-half months.
Stressing the need for interim protection, the counsel argued that if the police arrested the petitioner in the meantime, the anticipatory bail plea itself would become infructuous.
He submitted that if interim protection were granted, the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation and furnish all relevant details before the police.
The counsel appearing for the victim strongly rebutted the submissions, terming the petitioner’s version a “cock and bull story”.
He submitted that the victim’s family had waited till late in the night to get the case registered and alleged that since the petitioner’s father was a union Minister, the police had informed the petitioner’s family about the complaint even before registration of the FIR.
He further alleged that the petitioner’s family thereafter lodged a counterblast case accusing the victim’s family of extortion.
The victim’s counsel further argued that the petitioner’s family was highly influential and that it was only after public outrage and the intervention of the Chief Minister that the police accepted the entire version of the victim’s family and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on May 9. He denied that there were any improvements in the complaint and sought one week’s time to file a counter affidavit.
He argued that he could not be compelled to argue the interim application the very next day and urged that the petitioner should not be treated differently from other accused persons. He further submitted that the petitioner was absconding and did not deserve any special protection.
During the heated exchanges between the counsels, the petitioner’s counsel argued that his client was being vilified due to his father’s political background.
“My posters are put up across the city. I am being vilified and victimised because my father is a political figure. No other accused faces this kind of situation — that is why my case is special,” Reddy submitted.
The Court, however, observed that it would not pass any order on the interim application without first hearing the victim and accordingly posted the matter to Friday for hearing on the victim’s side.
