Telangana HC refuses interim relief from arrest to Union minister’s son in Pocso case

THe Telangana heights margaret court on fri declined to give meanwhile relief to Bandi Sai Bhageerath, son of a Central minister from the state, in connection with a case registered in Hyderabad under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act over allegations of sexual harassment of a minor girl, people familiar with the matter said.A vacation bench of the high court, Justice T Madhavi Devi, which heard the arguments till midnight, refused to pass any immediate protection from arrest while reserving its order on the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bhageerath and said that the verdict would be delivered on May 21.During the hearing, senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Bhageerath, urged the court to grant protection from arrest at least until the anticipatory bail petition was decided. He submitted that the petitioner was willing to cooperate fully with the police investigation. However, the bench made it clear that it was not inclined to issue any interim directions at this stage.Reddy contended that the complaint lodged by the girl’s parents at the Pet Basheerabad police station was filed only after obtaining extensive legal advice. He argued that a close reading of the complaint did not disclose any allegations constituting penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.He argued that the police subsequently and “with mala fide intent” added the section pertaining to penetrative sexual assault. The counsel further argued that the petitioner and the girl were in a relationship, and that her parents were aware of their association. He also pointed out that the complaint related to incidents alleged to have occurred last year and was filed after a considerable delay.Referring to allegations that the case was being diluted because Bhageerath’s father is a Union minister, Reddy argued that the ruling party in the state was politically opposed to the Union minister and that law and order remained under the control of the state government. He questioned how the Union minister, who is not in power in the state, could influence the investigation.He alleged that initially the FIR contained only bailable offences and that more serious sections were added later deliberately. Arresting the petitioner, the counsel argued, would cause irreparable damage to him, and therefore he was entitled to anticipatory bail.Appearing for the state government and the police, public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao opposed the anticipatory bail plea. He rejected the argument that the survivor was a major and informed the court that documentary proof, including her date of birth certificate and Class 10 marks memo, had been submitted in a sealed cover.The prosecutor said that the survivor was born in 2008 and was presently aged 17 years and three months. He said the investigating officers had collected comprehensive evidence and that the seriousness of the allegations became clear only after the victim’s statement was recorded, leading to the inclusion of the penetrative sexual assault charge under the POCSO Act.“The FIR is only a preliminary document and not an encyclopaedia. The complete facts emerge during investigation,” the prosecutor argued, adding that anticipatory bail or protection from arrest should not be granted in such a serious case.Senior advocate Pappu Nageshwar Rao, representing the survivor, made further allegations against Bhageerath, claiming that he had harassed four other girls and that they too would come forward in due course. He alleged that Bhageerath’s father was using his influence to divert the course of the investigation and that attempts at mediation were made through an individual named Sangappa.The survivor’s counsel further alleged that on January 1, the girl woke up at a farmhouse without clothes and claimed that the petitioner had made her consume alcohol. He argued that delay in filing a POCSO complaint was not uncommon or legally significant. He also alleged that the local police acted only after a counter-case was filed in Karimnagar and after the chief minister personally monitored the matter.The counsel additionally claimed that two FIRs had previously been registered against Bhageerath and argued that he was not a first-time offender.After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Devi reserved her verdict, refusing to grant any interim relief to Bhageerath.