HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the bail application of Bandi Sai Bhageerath, the son of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar. Bhageerath is currently facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice K. Sujana deferred the matter for orders after hearing extensive arguments from both sides, scheduling the final pronouncement for July 9.

Representing the petitioner, Senior Counsel T. Niranjan Reddy pressed for bail, pointing out that Bhageerath has already spent more than 40 days in judicial custody. He argued that further jail time is unnecessary given that the police investigation is already complete.

The defense further emphasized that:

The petitioner is a student whose education and future career are being severely disrupted by the ongoing detention. The accused and the victim were known to each other and had traveled together voluntarily in the past, which the defense argued diminishes the necessity for continued custody.Bhageerath had previously been granted interim bail to appear for his examinations, during which he adhered strictly to all court directives and voluntarily surrendered back to prison authorities immediately afterward.

Reddy also cited several Supreme Court precedents where bail was granted to individuals facing even weightier allegations.

Prosecution and Complainant Voice Tampering Concerns

Conversely, Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao strongly contested the bail plea, informing the court that the investigation is in its final phase and a formal charge sheet will be submitted imminently. The prosecution maintained that releasing the accused at this juncture could jeopardize the case, citing potential risks of evidence tampering and witness interference.

Echoing these concerns, Senior Advocate Pappu Nageshwar Rao, representing the victim's mother, disputed the defense’s claim that the probe was finished. He stated that critical material witnesses—especially those directly linked to the alleged sexual assault—have yet to be questioned.

Furthermore, the complainant's counsel argued that many mutual friends of the involved parties have not given their statements. He suggested that witnesses might feel intimidated or hesitant to come forward due to the high-profile political status of the petitioner’s father, meaning the grant of bail could create a hostile environment for a fair investigation.

After taking note of the conflicting submissions, Justice Sujana brought the hearing to a close and slated the judgment delivery for Thursday.