Telangana high court rejects businessman’s ED torture claim, upholds single judge order | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Telangana high court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Hyderabad-based businessman who alleged that he was assaulted and coerced during questioning by Enforcement Directorate (ED), ruling that such allegations involve disputed questions of fact that must be established through a criminal investigation and trial.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, in an order dated Sept 28, upheld an earlier decision of a single judge who had rejected the petition on June 23. The court found no independent and contemporaneous material linking the injuries claimed by the petitioner to his interrogation at the ED’s Hyderabad zonal office.The appellant, Kiran GS, had been summoned by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in March. After skipping the first two summons citing ill health, he appeared before ED officials on April 20, accompanied by a friend.In a petition filed the very next day, Kiran alleged that he was subjected to custodial torture during questioning and that his counsel and friend were forcibly removed from the premises. He also sought preservation and production of CCTV footage recorded at the office on the day of the alleged incident.The ED, however, denied the allegations and informed the court that Kiran was being questioned in connection with five FIRs involving celebrities, social media influencers and betting applications accused of cheating the public through online gaming platforms.According to the agency, CCTV footage showed Kiran leaving the office at around 8 pm without any visible injuries and signing the exit register. The ED also disputed the photographs produced by the petitioner, alleging that they were fabricated and possibly self-inflicted to derail the investigation.Kiran, on the other hand, argued that the ED had relied only on selective still photographs while withholding footage from the interrogation room. He contended that such conduct warranted an adverse inference against the agency. He also questioned the timestamps on the photographs, maintained that statements recorded under the PMLA must be voluntary, and relied on medical records to support his claims.The ED countered that despite alleging serious offences, Kiran had not lodged any police complaint, even though he approached the high court immediately after the alleged incident.Dismissing the appeal, the division bench held that allegations of torture, assault and coercion constitute serious criminal accusations that require evidence to be gathered through investigation and tested during trial. The court observed that if a complaint or FIR had been registered, investigating authorities could have collected material evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements.Holding that the writ court was not required to adjudicate such disputed factual issues in the absence of an investigation, the bench declined to interfere with the earlier order and dismissed the appeal.