Union minister's son Bandi Sai Bhageerath arrested in Pocso case

The Union minister in a statement in the evening said, “I have handed over my son, Sai Bhageerath, to the police for investigation through advocates in connection with the allegations levelled against him.”

People familiar with the matter said Bhageerath along with his advocates came to Pet Basheerabad police station in the evening and surrendered to the investigating officers.

“After due questioning and medical examination, he would be produced before a local court in Medchal,” a police official said.

In the statement, the Union minister said he respected the law and the judicial system. He maintained that everyone was equal before the law, irrespective of status or relationship.

“I have said earlier as well that whether it is my son or an ordinary citizen, everyone is equal before the law. All of us must abide by the law,” he said.

The Union minister said his son maintained that he had committed no wrongdoing.

Immediately after the complaint was lodged, he initially considered producing Bhageerath before the police station directly. “However, after consulting legal counsel, the available evidence was presented before the lawyers, who reportedly expressed confidence that the case would be dismissed and that bail would be granted without difficulty,” he said.

The Union minister attributed the delay in appearing before the investigators to the legal consultations and said that even now the lawyers were confident of securing bail.

“However, I felt it was not right to delay any further. With respect for the law and the judicial system, I brought my son and handed him over to the police through lawyers for investigation,” he said.

The Union minister added that although court orders were expected on Monday, he did not want any further delay in the matter and therefore decided to send his son for investigation immediately. He expressed complete faith in the judiciary.

Earlier, a vacation bench of the high court Justice T Madhavi Devi, which heard the arguments till midnight on Friday, refused to provide interim protection from arrest and stated that no temporary orders could be passed at the present stage.

The judge reserved her orders on the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bhageerath and announced 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, will 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 victim 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 stated that the victim 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 victim, made further allegations against Bhageerath, claiming that he had harassed four other girls and that they too will come forward in due course.

He alleged that the accused’s father was using his influence to divert the course of the investigation and that attempts at mediation had been made through an individual named Sangappa.

The victim’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. 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 were previously registered against Bhageerath and argued that he was not a first-time offender.

After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Madhavi Devi reserved her verdict, refusing to grant any interim relief to Bhageerath.