Unlawful assault claims during PMLA examination failed for lack of contemporaneous evidence and immediate complaint.

Allegations of unlawful assault, coercion and denial of legal access during examination under Section 50 of the PMLA were not substantiated on the material placed before the HC. The Court found no independent contemporaneous evidence linking the claimed injuries to the proceedings, while the respondents relied on CCTV material and an incident report indicating that the petitioner left without visible injury. The absence of any immediate complaint or request for medical aid at the premises also weighed against the claim. Relief was therefore rejected, including the request to preserve the alleged CCTV material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner established a case of unlawful assault, coercion and denial of legal access during examination under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, so as to warrant judicial relief and preservation of the alleged CCTV material.

Analysis: The allegations rested primarily on the petitioner's assertions and subsequent medical documents. The Court found no independent contemporaneous material conclusively linking the alleged injuries to the proceedings on 20.04.2026. The respondents denied the allegations and relied on CCTV material and the Incident Report of the same date, which indicated that the petitioner left the premises without visible injury. The Court also noted that no immediate complaint of assault or request for medical aid was shown to have been made at the premises. On the material before it, the Court was not persuaded to accept the claim of physical assault or coercion.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish the alleged illegal assault or coercion, and the request for relief was rejected.

---