Telangana High Court Rejects Third-Degree Torture Allegation Against ED, Finds No Material Linking Injuries To Interrogation

The Telangana High Court has refused to grant relief to a Bengaluru-based man who alleged that officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) assaulted and coerced him into making incriminating statements during questioning in a money laundering probe linked to illegal online betting applications. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104]

The Court held that the allegations of custodial assault were unsupported by any independent contemporaneous material and found no reason to accept the petitioner's plea seeking preservation and production of CCTV footage and other consequential reliefs.

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:

"The entire Writ Petition is founded upon allegations of physical assault, coercion and extraction of confession. However, apart from petitioner's own assertions and the medical documents subsequently relied upon, there is no independent contemporaneous material placed before the Court conclusively connecting the alleged injuries to the proceedings conducted on 20.04.2026. Respondents have categorically denied every allegation and placed reliance upon CCTV material, contemporaneous records and the Incident Report dated 20.04.2026."

The Court further noted that Petitioner never lodged any immediate complaint before any police authority alleging custodial violence. It said though absence of a police complaint was "not, by itself, conclusive", it nevertheless remained "a relevant circumstance while examining allegations of the nature made in the present case." It ultimately held that it was "not inclined to grant the relief prayed by petitioner."

The petitioner challenged the conduct of ED officials during investigation in ECIR No. HYZO/34/2025, which was registered in connection with multiple FIRs relating to alleged online betting and gaming applications. According to the petitioner, he was summoned under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and after appearing before the Hyderabad Zonal Office on April 20, 2026, he was allegedly assaulted by ED officers, slapped multiple times and subjected to "third degree treatment" to compel him to admit guilt. He further alleged that his friend, who had accompanied him due to language difficulties, was asked to remain outside and that advocates who later arrived at the office were prevented from meeting him.

The petitioner contended that any statement allegedly recorded from him under Section 50 of the PMLA had been obtained through coercion and violence and therefore lacked evidentiary value. Relying on medical records from Gandhi Hospital and subsequent treatment in Bengaluru, he asserted that he had suffered facial injuries, bleeding from the ear and hearing loss as a result of the alleged assault. He also sought preservation and production of the CCTV footage from the ED office.

The ED opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation related to proceeds of crime generated through illegal online betting applications. It contended that the petitioner had failed to appear in response to earlier summons and eventually appeared only on April 20, 2026. According to the ED, his statement was recorded in Kannada, a language known to him, "in a lawful, transparent and fair manner with adequate breaks and procedural safeguards." The agency denied all allegations of assault and asserted that the petitioner voluntarily made disclosures regarding accommodation entries and routing of funds through multiple bank accounts.

The ED further submitted that the entire incident at the reception area, including the conduct of persons claiming to be advocates, was captured on CCTV footage and that an Incident Report was prepared on the same day. It relied upon CCTV footage showing the petitioner leaving the office around 8:00 p.m. without any visible injuries and contended that the photographs relied upon by the petitioner were "false, fabricated, suspicious and possibly self-inflicted solely for the purpose of avoiding investigation."

In reply, the petitioner accused the ED of suppressing material evidence by producing only selected still photographs instead of the complete CCTV footage. He argued that the authorities deliberately failed to produce footage from inside the interrogation room, where the alleged assault had taken place, despite the Court's earlier direction to file the relevant CCTV footage and documents. He also contended that the protection under Article 21 of the Constitution continued to apply during proceedings under Section 50 of the PMLA and that any statement obtained through coercion stood vitiated.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner had admittedly been summoned in the course of a lawful investigation and had appeared only after failing to respond to earlier summons. It found that, apart from the petitioner's own assertions and subsequent medical records, there was no contemporaneous material conclusively connecting the alleged injuries to the interrogation conducted on April 20, 2026. On the other hand, the respondents had relied upon CCTV footage, contemporaneous records and the Incident Report to deny the allegations.

The Court also recorded the ED's submission that the CCTV footage showed the petitioner leaving the office without any visible injuries, looking at the clock while entering the time in the register and thereafter walking down the staircase with a mobile phone in his hand. Observing that the respondents had produced a USB containing the CCTV footage in support of their case, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Kiran G.S. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 12795 of 2026

Appearance: Sri P.N. Dayakar for the petitioner; Sri D. Narender Naik, Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104