Daijiworld Media Network
Bengaluru, March 13: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has submitted to the court that the gold smuggling case involving actress Ranya Rao, the stepdaughter of a senior IPS officer, has international and hawala links, raising concerns about national security.
Madhu Rao, senior counsel representing the DRI, opposed Ranya Rao’s bail petition in court, arguing that the investigation into the involvement of a smuggling syndicate is critical. He stressed that national security concerns and suspected hawala transactions are part of the probe.
“If we consider the criminal intent behind the case, jail is the appropriate place for her. The court should not grant bail merely on the grounds that the accused is a woman,” Rao stated in court.
He further explained that the case involves international links, with smuggling operations allegedly carried out with the assistance of a protocol police officer. He argued that it is essential to investigate how the money was transferred and how funds were arranged to purchase the seized gold.
Rao also pointed out that Ranya Rao holds an identity card listing her as a resident of Dubai, which, according to him, increases the risk of her fleeing the country.
“There is no valid reason to grant her bail, especially considering that she has smuggled gold worth Rs 12.56 crore. Additionally, Rs 2.67 crore in cash and Rs 2.06 crore worth of gold have already been seized. On March 4, her residence was searched, and her arrest followed due legal procedure in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines,” he added.
He stressed that granting bail to Ranya Rao could derail the investigation, as she has not been fully cooperating with the authorities.
“The court must consider the large-scale gold smuggling operation. At this stage, the evidence and findings of the investigating agency should not be questioned. The court must recognise them as presented,” he asserted.
Rao further warned that if bail were granted, there is a high possibility that Ranya Rao might flee the country, and crucial evidence could be destroyed. “At this stage, she is best suited to remain in custody,” he concluded.
The counsel also informed the court that the second accused in the case has been arrested, and further investigations are underway.
He urged the court to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Radhika Agarwal case while deciding on the bail plea.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Kiran Javali, representing Ranya Rao, countered the DRI’s arguments, stating that DRI officials had failed to provide any declaration for the gold brought by Ranya Rao.
“No supporting documents were provided to justify the possession of the gold. Section 102 of the Customs Act lays out clear guidelines on who must be present during a search,” he argued.
Javali alleged that DRI officials did not adhere to the provisions of the Customs Act during the arrest.
“Ranya Rao was detained at the airport’s Green Channel, with Sneha and Harishankar Nair identified as witnesses. Several procedural lapses were committed by DRI officials during the arrest,” he claimed.
“Due to these lapses, bail must be granted. We are not debating whether Ranya is guilty or not, but procedural violations by investigators warrant bail,” Javali emphasised.
He further argued that DRI officials failed to provide the “grounds of arrest” as required under Supreme Court guidelines set in the D.K. Basu case.
“They issued an arrest memo at the time of her detention but did not comply with the required legal provisions. Failure to follow SC guidelines makes this a fit case for bail,” he stated.
Javali pointed out multiple errors in the DRI’s objection petition, stating that previous verdicts by the Mumbai High Court had quashed cases where Section 102 was not properly followed.
He also emphasised that the accused must be informed of the charges against them and presented before a Gazetted Customs Officer or a Magistrate for the search to be valid.
“As per legal provisions, the search must be conducted in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for it to be valid,” he said.
Under Section 480 of the BNS Act, bail can be granted if the accused is a woman or suffering from health issues.
“This is not a murder case, so conditional bail can be granted. The investigation can continue if needed. The accused has already cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so,” Javali argued.
He also highlighted that authorities had been repeatedly questioning the accused without following the required legal intervals.
“Once a statement is recorded, there should be a minimum six-hour gap before further questioning. However, this protocol was not followed,” he said.
Finally, he concluded that the entire investigation process raised serious procedural concerns, making Ranya Rao’s continued remand unjustified.
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court had passed an interim order on Tuesday, directing the DRI not to arrest Jatin Vijaykumar Hukkeri, Ranya Rao’s husband, in the gold smuggling case. Hukkeri had approached the court alleging repeated summons by the DRI and harassment during questioning.