No Immediate Relief for Bandi Sai Bageerath; High Court Reserves Orders for May 21

Justice T. Madhavi Devi, after a marathon hearing in the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bageerath, lasting from 9 pm to 11.45 pm, reserved orders for Thursday, May 21. The judge refused to issue interim protection, status quo or any other relief to Bageerath, despite repeated requests of his counsel.

Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy requested the court to pronounce the orders on May 18 or give oral directions to the police to not take action against his client. The court stated that the vacation bench could not sit for pronouncement of orders.

The judge considered the statement of the victim, which was furnished by public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao in a sealed cover. The PP submitted that the victim was minor and her date of birth was August 12, 2008. He informed the court that investigation officer had personally gone to the hospital where the girl was born and verified the records.

"There is no dispute over her date of birth and she is a minor," Nageshwar Rao submitted to the court and refuted arguments of Bageerath's counsel who said the police had improvised the FIR with additional sections of higher punishment a day after May 8, when the FIR was initially registered against Bageerath.

The PP submitted that the additional sections were included after recording the personal statement of the victim and the earlier complaint was made by her mother. He argued that this case clearly had evidence of aggravated penetrative assault on a minor and also apprehensions of tampering of evidence, influencing witnesses and intimidation.

Bageerath`s counsel on Friday did not dispute that the victim was minor, whereas on Thursday the argument was over whether she was a major and relied on the chargesheet against the victim in 2021 in an underage driving case in which her age was mentioned as 15 years. The arguments of Bageerath's counsel were that there was only cordial relationship between the victim and Bageerath. Even assuming there was a physical relationship, it was not a penetrative assault against victim, he said. He submitted the WhatsApp call and phone call data between the victim and Bageerath from October 2025 to the first week of January 2026 and photographs in a sealed cover to show that the relationship was consensual.

Nageshwar Rao, counsel for victim, argued that the Bageerath had induced the victim and used and dumped her. Further he submitted that Bageerath had criminal antecedents and two FIRs had been registered against him earlier.

Bageerath's counsel submitted that the two FIRs were quashed, and there were no criminal cases pending against his client. Niranjan Reddy reiterated that bail in Pocso Act cases was not foreign to the law and assured that the petitioner would go to the police and assist them in investigation with the evidence he had in connection with the case. He also urged the court to lay down stringent conditions till the orders were pronounced and that his client would comply with them.

City Civil Court Restrains Media Platforms from Publishing Unverified Content on Bandi Sanjay

Union minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar secured interim relief from the City Civil Court here, which passed a sweeping gag order restraining print, electronic, digital and social media platforms from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory content relating to the Pocso Act case involving his son Bandi Sai Bageerath.

The court, while hearing a civil suit filed by the minister, issued ‘John Doe’ orders and interim injunctions against media houses, digital platforms, unidentified social media users and intermediaries, directing them to immediately remove and refrain from publishing any defamatory, abusive, fabricated, misleading or unverified material concerning the petitioner.

The injunction extended to television channels, websites, YouTube channels, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, WhatsApp and other online intermediaries. The court directed that all existing content allegedly defamatory in nature be taken down forthwith.

Senior counsel B. Chandrasen Reddy, appearing on behalf of Sanjay, argued that several media organisations and social media platforms had published and amplified unverified allegations without official confirmation from investigating agencies or supporting material. He contended that the publications were based on anonymous and unreliable sources and had caused serious reputational, political and personal harm to his client.

Senior counsel submitted that one section of media, some persons through YouTube channels and social media platforms had engaged in a coordinated campaign of false reporting, malicious insinuation and character assassination by linking the petitioner to the alleged incident without any factual basis. It was argued that the continuous circulation of such material constituted a continuing wrong causing irreparable injury to the petitioner’s dignity, reputation and constitutional standing.

After considering the submissions advanced by senior counsel Chandrasen Reddy, the court observed the seriousness of the allegations relating to defamatory and unverified publications and granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner. The court consequently issued John Doe orders against unknown persons and anonymous social media accounts and restrained all defendants and intermediaries from further circulation of defamatory material in any form.

In the defamation suit, Sanjay also sought damages of ₹1 crore against the 21 defendants, which involved various media organisations for alleged defamation and reputational injury caused by the publications. Hearing was adjourned to a later date.

POCSO Row: Justice Madhavi Devi Decries Social Media Attacks on Her Family

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Friday expressed serious concern over a “smear campaign” on social media targeting her and her family members for hearing the anticipatory bail petition of Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Union minister of state for home Bandi Sanjay Kumar, in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The judge gave vent to her disappointment at the campaign on Friday while hearing Bageerath’s plea for interim protection in the anticipatory bail petition he had filed earlier. Owing to a heavy list of cases before the vacation bench headed by Justice Madhavi Devi, the hearing commenced around 9 pm.

Before hearing arguments, the judge referred to messages and pamphlet-like material allegedly being circulated on social media against her and her husband. Addressing counsels, she said she was deeply pained by attempts to attribute motives to her stating for hearing the matter. The judge asked how claims could be made that she had her husband were offered something.

“How many of you are on social media? Have you noticed the smear campaign,” the judge asked counsels, while observing that such criticism was unwarranted merely because the case had come before her bench in the ordinary course of judicial work.

Justice Madhavi Devi asked senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy representing Bageerath, the victim’s mother’s counsel Pappu Nageshwar Rao, and public prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao whether they had any objection to her hearing the case. She made it clear that she would not hesitate to recuse if any party had even “an iota of objection”.

Counsel for the victim stated that he had no objection and requested the court to proceed with the hearing. The public prosecutor informed the bench that he had noticed the social media circulation and had alerted the Hyderabad police commissioner, who had reportedly assured immediate action.

Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy remarked that attempts to “browbeat the judiciary” through such campaigns had occurred earlier as well; he had submitted that three days before the hearing of the case similar campaign postings were circulated against a judge.

The case was to be heard by another judge. Following online reports, that judge had allegedly recused from hearing the matter.