Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19871
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Kiran G.S. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 12795 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Money Laundering & Investigative Procedures
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.21, Art.22(1)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.318(4), S.111(2), S.112, S.49, S.46, S.61(2)
Information Technology Act, 2000: S.66-C, S.66-D
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate for investigation into alleged money laundering activities involving betting and gaming applications. During his appearance, the petitioner alleged he was subjected to physical assault and third-degree treatment by officers to extract a confession. He sought relief based on medical reports of injuries and requested the production of CCTV footage. The respondents denied all allegations, asserting the interrogation was conducted fairly and providing CCTV evidence of the petitioner exiting the premises appearing uninjured.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there was no independent contemporaneous material linking the alleged injuries to the proceedings. The CCTV footage produced by the respondents showed the petitioner leaving the office without visible injury, undermining the credibility of the medical evidence and claims of assault. The petition was viewed as a belated, mala fide attempt to retract voluntary admissions.
Issues: Whether the investigation proceedings were conducted with illegal coercion and physical violence, and whether the petitioner is entitled to judicial intervention to challenge the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of custodial misconduct in the course of an investigation under the 2002 Act require substantial, credible, and contemporaneous evidence. Where respondents provide objective footage contradicting claims of physical assault, and the petitioner offers no corroborative proof of the alleged incident, such claims are to be dismissed as attempts to derail statutory investigations.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.N. Dayakar
For the Respondents: D. Narender Naik
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of allegations regarding custodial torture and responder's evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of summons compliance and evidentiary weight of cctv. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. dismissal of writ petition due to lack of evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
O R D E R:
The case of petitioner is that pursuant to Summons bearing No. PMLA/SUMMON/HYZO/2026/5687 under File No. HYZO/34/2025 requiring him to appear before the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad Zonal Office for giving evidence and producing records under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’), he could not appear on 07-03-2026, hence, he was directed to appear on 25-03-2026, but he could not attend due to ill-health, he was thereafter, directed to appear on 20-04-2026, on which date, he is stated to have appeared before Respondents 3 and 4, accompanied by his friend, Mr. Chandra Mohan. M, as he neither understands nor speaks Telugu, however, his friend was asked to remain outside.
1.1. Petitioner alleges that after being taken into the chamber, one subordinate officer closed the door while two others restrained him by holding his hands behind the chair. Respondents 3 and 4 allegedly shouted at him in Hindi, slapped him approximately six to eight times and subjected him to third degree treatment compelling him to admit guilt in relation to offences under the 2002 Act. It is stated, his cries for help were heard by Mr. Chandra Mohan. M, who immediately contacted their counsel, who rushed to the office premises to ascertain his welfare. Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.5, a private security guard, informed the 3rd Respondent about the arrival of their counsel, but they were forcibly removed from the premises and prevented from communicating with petitioner, thereby isolating him from legal assistance. Petitioner contends that the aforesaid actions of Respondents 3 to 5 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the principles governing the rights of persons summoned by investigating agencies.
1.2. Petitioner asserts that any statement, signature or confession allegedly obtained from him on 20-04-2026 was obtained through coercion, violence and duress and therefore, lacks evidentiary value. He underwent medical examination at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, Telangana and filed medical reports, MLC records, clinical photographs, travel itinerary and official e mail communications exchanged with Respondent No.3. According to petitioner, medical records disclose multiple contusions on face, facial swelling, head injury and bleeding from left ear, supporting his allegations of physical assault. Immediate preservation and production of CCTV footage of Hyderabad Zonal Office premises for 20-04-2026 is necessary to establish the alleged assault upon him and the forcible removal of his counsel and friend from the premises. Reliance is placed, in this regard, upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.
2. In the counter, the 3rd respondent - Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, stated that five FIRs, namely FIR No.393 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025, FIR No.34 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025, FIR No.9350 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024, FIR No.36 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 and FIR No.208 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025, were registered under Sections 318(4), 111(2), 112, 49, 46 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 and 4 of APGA & TSGA and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against various celebrities, social media influencers and betting applications for allegedly cheating the public by inducing them to invest money in on line betting and gaming applications and websites on the promise of huge returns.
2.1. It is stated that since Section 420 IPC, 1860 corresponding to Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 120-B IPC, 1860 corresponding to Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 are sche
