PMLA Torture Claims Lack Credible Evidence: Telangana High Court Dismisses Plea

In a significant ruling concerning the investigative powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Bengaluru-based man alleging third-degree torture. The court emphasized that allegations of custodial violence must be substantiated by contemporaneous evidence, finding the petition, which lacked such proof, to be an attempt to obstruct a lawful investigation.

Case Background The petitioner, Kiran G.S., was summoned under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), regarding his alleged involvement in money laundering linked to a series of FIRs involving online betting and gaming applications. After failing to appear for multiple scheduled dates, the petitioner appeared before the Hyderabad Zonal Office on April 20, 2026.

Following his appearance, the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that he had been subjected to physical assault and intimidation, claiming he was slapped multiple times and coerced into confessing to offenses during his interrogation. He also alleged that his legal counsel and a friend, who accompanied him, were forcibly removed from the premises to isolate him from effective legal assistance.

The Arguments The petitioner contended that any statement recorded from him was a result of physical duress, violating the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution. To support his claims, he produced medical reports from Gandhi Hospital and subsequent diagnostic findings from a specialty clinic, asserting that facial injuries and bilateral hearing loss were direct results of the custodial treatment.

In response, the Enforcement Directorate categorically denied the accusations. The agency stated that the petitioner’s statement was recorded lawfully in a language familiar to him, with necessary procedural safeguards. The ED argued that the petitioner, along with others present at the reception, had engaged in disruptive conduct aimed at derailing the probe—an incident recorded in an internal Incident Report and captured by CCTV surveillance.

The agency further submitted conclusive visual evidence, noting that CCTV footage from the time the petitioner exited the premises showed him leaving the office at approximately 8:00 p.m. without visible injuries, holding a mobile phone, and calmly signing the building’s security register.

Legal Analysis and Precedents Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka examined the conflicting submissions with a focus on evidence. While acknowledging that proceedings under Section 50 of the PMLA are judicial in character and must be conducted humanely, the court found the lack of immediate, contemporaneous evidence surrounding the alleged assault to be fatal to the petitioner’s case.

The court noted that the petitioner failed to lodge a police complaint at the time of the alleged incident. While not an absolute bar, the court considered this a "relevant circumstance" in evaluating the credibility of the claims. The court distinguished this case from Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh , noting that in the absence of independent contemporaneous material, the medical reports presented post-facto were insufficient to establish that the injuries were sustained during the interrogation.

Key Observations The High Court’s ruling highlighted the following:

• "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 ."
• "The CCTV footage clearly shows petitioner leaving the ED premises at 08.00 p.m. without any injury or mark on his face... the image / photographs which is filed in the Writ Petition is absolutely false, fabricated."
• "Absence of a police complaint is not, by itself, conclusive, it remains a relevant circumstance while examining allegations of the nature made in the present case."

Final Decision Concluding that the petition was a "belated and mala fide attempt" to retract voluntary statements and obstruct an ongoing investigation into proceeds of crime , the Court dismissed the writ petition . The decision reinforces the position that allegations against investigating agencies must bear the burden of objective proof, especially when contrasted with contemporaneous digital records provided by the investigating authorities. The practical implication of this order suggests that courts will remain vigilant against attempts to use unfounded allegations of misconduct as a tactic to stall legal processes under the PMLA .