HC seeks ED response on man’s torture, forced statement allegations | Hyderabad News
Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Friday sought responses from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the police on a petition alleging illegal detention and custodial torture by ED officials during questioning in connection with the alleged Andhra Pradesh liquor transportation scam.Justice EV Venugopal directed the ED and the police department to file counters and posted the matter for further hearing on Nov 27.The petition was filed by Mangalampalli Naga Sai Manikanta, who alleged that ED officials detained him for nearly 10 hours at their Hyderabad office on Oct 26, assaulted him and forced him to sign a false statement.Manikanta claimed he was summoned only as a witness and not as an accused in the case. According to the petition, although he appeared before the ED voluntarily, officials questioned him on matters unrelated to him, abused and threatened him, and allegedly assaulted him by twisting his fingers, pulling his ears and pushing him against a wall.He further alleged that businessman Vallu Sandeep, who has a land dispute with his family, entered the interrogation room later in the day and pressured him to state that his family had received black money in a land transaction and to name former minister KV Nageswara Rao and his son K Sunil Kumar. Sandeep allegedly threatened consequences for his family if he refused.Manikanta alleged that he ultimately signed a statement prepared by the officials under physical force and fear without being allowed to read its contents. He has since retracted the statement.In his petition, he sought an independent, court-monitored investigation, preservation of CCTV footage and records from the ED office, registration of an FIR based on his complaint, and a direction restraining authorities from relying on the disputed statement. He has also approached Saifabad police seeking registration of an FIR against the ED officials concerned.Appearing for the ED, counsel Zoheb Hossain opposed the petition, arguing that it was not maintainable. He contended that complaints against public servants must be pursued before the jurisdictional magistrate in accordance with the law. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he urged the court to dismiss the petition at the threshold.
Source link
