Hyderabad Boxer Booked for Promoting Unauthorised Fighting Event on Social Media
Hyderabad police have registered a case against boxer Purvik Munugapati for promoting an unauthorised fighting event online. This follows a previous legal action taken against him for organizing a similar unpermitted combat show in a shopping mall basement.
Highlights
- •Malkajgiri police booked a boxer for promoting an unauthorised fighting event online.
- •The accused previously faced a case for holding an unpermitted fight in a mall basement.
- •Local boxing associations and police had explicitly denied permission for the second event.
- •Authorities are now investigating the circumstances and those involved in the promotional efforts.
Law enforcement authorities in Hyderabad have initiated legal action against a professional boxer following the promotion of an unauthorised fighting event via social media. The Malkajgiri Cyber Crime Police have officially registered a case against Purvik Munugapati, who operates a local fight club, for his role in advertising a series of illegal bouts that lacked the necessary regulatory approvals.
This latest legal development centers on a promotional video shared online, which aimed to advertise the second installment of an underground-style combat program. Despite failing to secure permits from the relevant boxing associations or local police departments, the organizer continued to solicit interest for the event, ultimately prompting intervention from cybersecurity officials. The authorities are currently investigating the specific details of the proposed event and identifying other individuals potentially involved in its digital promotion.
Background on the Unauthorised Fighting Event
The recent case follows a previous incident involving the same individual that took place just days prior. On June 10, the Saroornagar police registered a case against Purvik Munugapati after he held the inaugural episode of a similar combat show within the basement of a local shopping mall. During that earlier occurrence, the organizer failed to obtain any prior authorization, leading to his detention and the issuance of legal notices under section 223 of the BNS as part of a suo motu investigation.
Reports indicate that the organizer, who operates the Brutal Fight Club—a training facility located in the same building where the initial event was conducted—did attempt to seek official approval for the follow-up episode. However, both the local boxing governing bodies and law enforcement officials explicitly denied these requests. Despite the clear denial of permission, promotional content continued to circulate, leading to the current charges. The persistence of these events highlights a growing challenge for local authorities in monitoring and regulating small-scale, high-risk physical competitions that attempt to bypass standard safety and legal frameworks.
As the investigation continues, officials are emphasizing the importance of obtaining formal clearance for any public event that involves physical combat or high-risk activities. The case serves as a stern reminder of the legal consequences for organizers who choose to ignore public safety regulations and proceed with prohibited gatherings. While the Malkajgiri Cyber Crime Police continue their inquiries, the focus remains on ensuring that such high-risk activities are held only within the boundaries of established legal standards to prevent potential harm to participants and spectators alike.
