Court Finds Lack of Credible Evidence to Support Claims of Coercion and Physical Assault During Investigation
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Kiran G.S., which alleged custodial violence and coercion during his investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The judgment, delivered by Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, emphasized the absence of independent, contemporaneous, and credible evidence linking the alleged physical injuries to the investigation proceedings conducted on April 20, 2026.
The petitioner, Kiran G.S., contended that he was subjected to third-degree treatment, including physical assault, during his appearance before the Enforcement Directorate. His claims included being restrained, slapped multiple times, and coerced into confessing to offenses under the Act. He further alleged that his counsel was denied access, isolating him from legal assistance, which he argued violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
In response, the Enforcement Directorate, represented by Deputy Solicitor General N Bhujanga Rao, denied the allegations, presenting CCTV footage and contemporaneous records to refute the claims. The agency argued that Kiran G.S. did not immediately complain of any assault, nor sought medical aid at the premises, nor lodged any police complaint regarding custodial violence. The court noted that while the absence of a police complaint is not conclusive, it is a relevant circumstance in evaluating the allegations.
Justice Bheemapaka highlighted that the burden of proof rested on the petitioner to substantiate his claims through independent material evidence, especially when the respondents provided credible CCTV footage contradicting the allegations. The footage purportedly showed Kiran G.S. leaving the premises without visible injuries, thus undermining his subsequent medical evidence.
The court also addressed the petitioner's assertion that any statements or confessions obtained during the investigation were invalid due to coercion. However, the court upheld the validity of statements obtained unless proven to be vitiated through coercion or undue influence, a burden not met by the petitioner.
In dismissing the petition, the court concluded that the allegations were unsupported by adequate evidence and that the selective production of CCTV footage by the respondents did not amount to suppression of material evidence. The court further noted that the investigation into the alleged money laundering activities continued lawfully, and the petitioner’s claims appeared to be a belated attempt to retract his admissions and obstruct the investigation.
The ruling underscores the importance of credible evidence when alleging custodial violence and reinforces the need for transparency and procedural fairness in investigations under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act.
Bottom line:-
Allegations of custodial violence and coercion during investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 must be supported by independent, contemporaneous, and credible evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 50(2), 50(3); Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 21, 22(1); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 318(4), 61(2); Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66-C, 66-D
Kiran G.S. v. Union of India, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940802
