Telangana HC Dismisses Writ Alleging ED Assault, Cites CCTV Showing Petitioner Leaving Without Injury

Kiran G.S. alleged physical assault, coercion and denial of legal access during ED questioning on 20 April 2026; the High Court found no independent contemporaneous material to support the claims.

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed by Kiran G.S., who alleged that officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the Hyderabad Zonal Office physically assaulted him, extracted a confession under coercion, and denied him access to legal assistance during examination conducted on 20 April 2026 under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, sitting singly, held that apart from the petitioner’s own assertions and subsequently produced medical documents, no independent contemporaneous material placed before the Court conclusively connected the alleged injuries to the proceedings of that day. The CCTV footage produced by the ED, showing the petitioner leaving the office premises at around 8:00 p.m. without any visible injury or mark on his face, weighed heavily against the writ petition.

The Dispute Before the Court

Kiran G.S. was summoned by the ED under File No. HYZO/34/2025 to appear before the Hyderabad Zonal Office for giving evidence and producing records. He did not appear on the first scheduled date of 7 March 2026. He was rescheduled to 25 March 2026, which he also missed citing ill-health. He eventually appeared on 20 April 2026, accompanied by his friend Chandra Mohan M., stating that he neither understood nor spoke Telugu and needed a companion for that reason.

According to the petitioner, once he entered the chamber, a subordinate officer closed the door while two others restrained him by holding his hands behind the chair. He alleged that the ED officers, including Respondent No. 4 Prateek Singh, shouted at him in Hindi and slapped him approximately six to eight times, subjecting him to what he described as third-degree treatment to compel him to admit guilt. He claimed that his cries were heard by Chandra Mohan, who contacted their counsel. The counsel rushed to the ED office, but the petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 5, a private security guard, informed the officer of the counsel’s arrival, following which the counsel and Chandra Mohan were forcibly removed from the premises and prevented from communicating with him.

The petitioner submitted that any statement, signature or confession obtained on 20 April 2026 was obtained through coercion and violence and therefore lacked evidentiary value. He relied on medical records from Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, showing contusions on his face, facial swelling, head injury and bleeding from the left ear. He also subsequently produced records from Sri Balaji Speech and Hearing Clinic, including an audiogram, showing bilateral minimal hearing loss, which he attributed to the alleged assault. He sought preservation and production of the CCTV footage from inside the interrogation cabin on that date, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh.

The ED’s Counter

The investigation against the petitioner arose from five FIRs registered against various celebrities, social media influencers and betting applications for allegedly cheating the public by inducing investment in online betting and gaming platforms. The offences included Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to cheating and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code), Sections 3 and 4 of the APGA & TSGA, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Because cheating and criminal conspiracy are scheduled offences under the 2002 Act, the ED registered ECIR No. ECIR/HYZO/34/2025 dated 27 June 2025 and issued summons.

The ED denied every allegation of physical assault. According to the ED, when the petitioner appeared on 20 April 2026, his request to have Chandra Mohan accompany him was declined because Chandra Mohan was not conversant with the language of the proceedings. The petitioner’s statement was then recorded in Kannada, a language he knew, with adequate breaks and procedural safeguards. The ED stated that persons claiming to be advocates arrived at the reception and created a disturbance, and that the petitioner himself categorically stated during proceedings that he had not engaged any counsel and did not know these persons. An Incident Report dated 20 April 2026 was prepared and submitted to the supervisory authority on the same day.

On the central question of injury, the ED relied on CCTV footage showing the petitioner leaving the office at approximately 8:00 p.m. without any visible injury. The footage near the security desk, according to the ED, clearly captured the petitioner’s face as he looked up at the clock to note the time in the register, with no injury visible on either cheek. After signing the register, he was shown leaving the third floor by the staircase while carrying a mobile phone. The ED contended that the photographs filed by the petitioner were “false, fabricated, suspicious and possibly self-inflicted” to avoid investigation. A USB drive containing the CCTV footage was produced before the Court.

On the merits of the investigation, the ED stated that in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 50, the petitioner admitted involvement in providing accommodation entries through his bank accounts without genuine business activity, receiving commission of 1 to 2%. He also admitted receiving funds from multiple persons and transferring them to various accounts in a layered manner, facilitating concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED characterised the writ petition as a belated and mala fide attempt to retract voluntary admissions.

The Petitioner’s Reply and the CCTV Controversy

The petitioner filed a reply disputing the Court’s earlier direction. By an order dated 22 April 2026, the Court had directed the Standing Counsel for the ED to file a counter along with relevant CCTV footage and all relevant documents. The petitioner contended that instead of producing complete footage, the ED selectively filed only still photographs depicting the reception area, corridor and his exit at around 8:00 p.m., amounting to suppression of material evidence.

The petitioner focused on the interrogation cabin itself. He pointed out that the ED’s own Incident Report dated 20 April 2026 acknowledged that proceedings were videographed through a camera installed in the cabin. The non-production of that interior footage, he argued, warranted an adverse inference. He challenged the CCTV still photograph bearing timestamp “2026-04-20 20:02:10” as suspicious and manipulated, arguing it was a distant, low-resolution exit image that deliberately suppressed the cabin footage from the period when the assault allegedly occurred.

The petitioner also distinguished the ED’s reliance on Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, arguing that the issue here was not merely whether a lawyer could be present during questioning but the complete denial of legal access while he was allegedly being subjected to physical torture. He reiterated that the ED remained bound by Article 21 of the Constitution. He also raised Section 57 of the 2002 Act, contending that any evidence collected without following the prescribed procedure for a Contracting State required satisfaction of the Special Court under Section 57(1).

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Bheemapaka began by establishing the undisputed foundation: summons under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the 2002 Act were issued in connection with a lawful investigation into scheduled offences and alleged money laundering. The petitioner did not appear on 7 March 2026 and appeared only on 20 April 2026. The ED had therefore established that the petitioner was a person lawfully summoned in the course of a live investigation.

The Court then turned to the assault allegations. It observed that the entire writ petition was founded upon allegations of physical assault, coercion and extraction of confession. Against those allegations, the Court weighed what was placed before it. On the petitioner’s side: his own assertions, medical documents produced subsequently, and the claim that photographs showed injuries. On the ED’s side: a categorical denial, an Incident Report prepared on the day itself, CCTV material, and contemporaneous records.

The Court noted three circumstances that operated against the petitioner. First, he never complained of assault during the proceedings themselves. Second, he never sought medical aid at the premises. Third, he never lodged any immediate complaint before any police authority alleging custodial violence. The Court was careful to add that absence of a police complaint is not by itself conclusive, but held it remained a relevant circumstance when examining allegations of this nature.

The CCTV footage produced by the ED proved decisive. The Court accepted that the footage near the security desk clearly captured the petitioner’s face as he looked at the clock and signed the register at around 8:00 p.m., with no injury visible on either cheek. The footage also showed him leaving through the staircase while carrying a mobile phone. Against this, the Court found that no independent contemporaneous material had been placed before it conclusively connecting the alleged injuries to the proceedings of 20 April 2026. The photographs filed by the petitioner, in the Court’s assessment, did not displace what the CCTV material showed.

The Court did not separately examine the petitioner’s arguments on adverse inference from non-production of the cabin footage, the Section 57 argument, or the Articles 21 and 22(1) claims in depth, because it found that the foundational factual premise of the writ — that an assault occurred — was not established by independent contemporaneous material. Without that foundation, the relief prayed could not follow.

Order

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed Writ Petition No. 12795 of 2026 on 23 June 2026 with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed as a consequence of the dismissal.