POCSO FIR Against Union Minister B.Sanjay’s Son Triggers Political Storm, Raises Questions Over Delay, Counter-Cases and Police Procedure

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Hyderabad,10, May,2026-A criminal case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, has snowballed into one of Telangana’s most politically sensitive legal controversies, drawing sharp reactions from opposition parties, legal commentators and child rights observers.

The case, now under investigation by the Pet Basheerabad Police in Hyderabad, has brought into focus not only the allegations themselves, but also the manner in which the complaint was handled, the filing of counter-cases against the complainant’s family, and broader concerns over institutional response in cases involving politically influential individuals.

FIR Registered Under BNS and POCSO Provisions

According to police sources, a First Information Report (FIR) was formally registered on May 8 at the Pet Basheerabad Police Station against Bandi Sai Bageerath under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

Section 11 of the POCSO Act defines “sexual harassment” of a child, while Section 12 prescribes punishment for the offence, which may extend to imprisonment and fine. Section 74 of the BNS pertains to assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, while Section 75 addresses acts involving sexual harassment and unwelcome physical conduct.

The complainant, stated to be approximately 17 years old, alleged that she was made to consume alcohol and was thereafter sexually assaulted at a farmhouse on the outskirts of Hyderabad.

The alleged incidents are said to have occurred on two separate occasions.

Investigators have confirmed that the victim’s statement is in the process of being recorded and that further evidentiary collection is underway.

Delay in FIR Registration Draws Scrutiny

The circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR have themselves become a major point of controversy.

Sources familiar with the matter indicated that the complainant’s family had allegedly approached the police earlier, but the FIR was registered only after the family reportedly threatened to move the courts seeking judicial intervention.

Under established Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving cognisable offences and offences against minors, prompt registration of an FIR is considered mandatory.

Legal observers have therefore questioned whether there was undue hesitation or procedural delay in initiating criminal proceedings in the present case.

The delay has also intensified political criticism, with opposition leaders alleging that the accused’s political background may have influenced the pace of police action an allegation that investigating authorities have not officially commented upon.

Counter-Complaint Filed Before FIR

In a parallel development that has added a further layer of complexity to the case, Bageerath had lodged a complaint hours before the FIR against him was registered.

The complaint was filed at the Two Town Police Station in Karimnagar, the parliamentary constituency represented by his father, Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar.

In his complaint, Bageerath allegedly accused the minor girl and her family of intimidation, coercion and extortion. He stated that he had come into contact with the girl through mutual acquaintances and that the relationship later became contentious after her family allegedly pressured him to marry her.

According to the complaint, he refused the proposal, following which he claimed the family threatened criminal proceedings unless financial demands were met. He alleged that he paid ₹50,000 under pressure and that the family later demanded ₹5 crore.

He further claimed that some of his associates had encountered similar issues involving the same family and referred to an earlier complaint allegedly filed at the Nirmal Police Station in April 2026.

The filing of counter-cases against the complainant’s family particularly involving a minor protected under POCSO legislation has generated significant legal debate. Several child rights advocates and criminal law practitioners have argued that such actions could potentially discourage reporting by victims and may run contrary to the protective framework envisaged under the POCSO Act.

Earlier Controversies Resurface

The present allegations have also revived public attention around Bageerath’s alleged appearance in a previously circulated video linked to an assault incident involving students of Mahindra University.

While no direct legal connection between the earlier controversy and the present FIR has been established, opposition leaders and commentators have questioned whether prior complaints or allegations involving influential individuals receive adequate institutional scrutiny.

Political Reactions Intensify Ahead of PM’s Hyderabad Visit

The timing of the FIR registered a day before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s scheduled rally in Hyderabad has sharply escalated the political fallout.

BRS Working President K.T. Rama Rao launched a strong attack on both the BJP-led Union government and the Congress-led Telangana government, alleging that political considerations had delayed police action.

KTR demanded the resignation of Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar, arguing that a minister holding responsibilities connected to internal security and law enforcement could not remain insulated from accountability while serious allegations under POCSO were pending against his son.

Referring to the Centre’s “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” campaign, he questioned whether the government’s stated commitment to women’s safety was being applied uniformly when allegations involved politically connected individuals.

He also questioned why the complainant allegedly had to wait for months before an FIR was ultimately registered.

Neither the Union Minister nor the BJP has issued a detailed response to the allegations at the time of publication, beyond maintaining that the matter should be investigated in accordance with law.

Key Legal Questions Before Investigators

As the investigation proceeds, several legal and procedural questions remain under intense public scrutiny:

• Whether there was avoidable delay in registration of the FIR despite the mandatory nature of police action in cognisable offences involving minors
• Whether filing counter-cases against the complainant’s family is consistent with the victim-protection framework under the POCSO Act
• Whether investigative standards ordinarily applied in POCSO cases will be followed uniformly despite the accused’s political connections
• And whether institutional safeguards for minor complainants were adequately implemented during the period preceding registration of the FIR.

Opposition leaders have additionally cited reports alleging that the minor complainant may have attempted self-harm during the period when her complaint was allegedly not acted upon, though these claims have not yet been independently verified by investigators.

Investigation Underway

The Pet Basheerabad Police have stated that the investigation is ongoing and that due procedure is being followed. Officials indicated that statements are being recorded and material evidence is being examined.

With the matter now attracting statewide political attention and potential judicial scrutiny, the case is expected to test not only the robustness of criminal procedure under POCSO, but also public confidence in the impartiality of law enforcement when allegations intersect with political power.