Actor Ranya Rao jailed for gold smuggling under COFEPOSA, no bail
The Advisory Board handling the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) matter recently ruled that the actor will not be granted bail during the entire term of her detention.
Earlier on May 20, Ranya Rao was granted default bail by a court in Bengaluru, along with co-accused Tarun Raju, after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) failed to file a chargesheet within the legally mandated time frame.
Despite the bail being granted on a ₹2 lakh bond and surety conditions, both Ranya Rao and Tarun Raju remained in custody due to the preventive detention order under COFEPOSA, which permits detention for up to one year even without formal charges, based on suspicion of smuggling activities.
Case background
In March, Ranya Rao arrived at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru from Dubai and walked through the green channel, which is typically reserved for passengers without dutiable items.
When questioned by DRI officials about whether she had any undeclared items, she appeared anxious. Her suspicious behaviour prompted authorities to conduct a detailed search by female officers.
A total of 14.2 kilograms of gold, valued at approximately ₹12.56 crore, was found on her. She was taken into custody.
Ranya Rao's earlier bail applications were turned down, twice by local courts and later by the High Court of Karnataka.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
2, including importer, held in Mumbai Rs 2 crore fraud
Representative image MUMBAI: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have busted a smuggling racket and have arrested two persons in attempting to smuggle prohibited and restricted goods worth ₹2.4 crores into India by grossly mis-declaring imports under the name of M/s Jay Overseas. The DRI arrested Javid Memon and importer Dipak Thakkar who played a key role in the racket. Their lawyers Vinay Advani and Aditya Talpade argued that their clients have legitimate business and have been falsely implicated in the case. The court remanded duo to judicial custody. On the specific intelligence the DRI recently intercepted the consignment, at CFS Ashe Logistics Pvt Ltd, which was declared as other goods but was found to contain large quantities of fireworks/firecrackers, pocket lighters, and counterfeit branded footwear and accessories, including 'Nike' flip flops, 'Crocs' clogs, and shoe inner soles. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The seizure included 6,270 pieces of firecrackers valued at ₹87.78 lakh (prohibited), alongside restricted goods worth ₹1.16 crore. The goods were seized under Sections 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and are liable to confiscation u/s 111 of the customs act. During investigation, Memon allegedly admitted to managing the smuggling operations for Jay Overseas and named one Dipak Gautam Thakkar as the owner of the seized goods. He confessed to transferring ₹6.5 lakh, both online and in cash, to the company's account on Thakkar's instructions. He also revealed past dealings involving clearing other imported consignments and visits to China multiple times a year for sourcing goods. DRI stated that Memon had suppressed key details about the syndicate, which has international links, and cited a high risk of evidence tampering and further smuggling if he remained free. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Deccan Herald
a day ago
- Deccan Herald
Dharmasthala clash: 6 arrested for obstructing police from discharging duty
Some YouTubers, cameramen and a reporter of a private Kannada channel were attacked during the clash.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Court grants anticipatory bail to importer in DRI ‘inshell walnut' probe
The sessions court recently granted anticipatory bail to businessman Rajesh Arjundas Jotwani in a case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) over alleged undervaluation of imported in-shell walnuts. The bail was anchored on protection of liberty, prevention of abuse of process, and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation. (Shutterstock) The case related to imports from Chile that were allegedly undervalued to evade duty. In his anticipatory bail application — filed through advocates Mithilesh Mishra and Anurag Mishra — Jotwani alleged that on February 7, 2025, DRI officers searched his home and office in connection with the imports, claiming a probable customs duty shortfall of ₹3 crore. Later that day, he was allegedly threatened at the DRI's Mumbai office with immediate arrest unless he made an 'on-the-spot' payment. According to him, he disclosed that he had about ₹1 crore in his bank account and, under pressure, transferred the amount to a DRI-designated account through his clearing agent without any formal demand notice, adjudication order, or explanation of how the figure was calculated. The petition further claims that the officers made him send an email confirming the payment and promising to clear the 'balance' of ₹2 crore within 10–15 days, again without any written determination of duty liability. His statement, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was allegedly recorded late at night without allowing him to read it, and he was detained at the DRI office till around 2 am. Jotwani alleged that after two appearances in February, the DRI neither served a show cause notice nor initiated adjudication, and that no further communication was received for nearly five months until June 20 when they issued fresh summons. He contended that this amounted to 'continued harassment' without formal charges, and accused the agency of procedural irregularities, coercive tactics, unlawful detention, and speculative investigation. Jotwani will be released on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with one surety of like amount in the event of arrest. The court's order does not deal with the merits of these allegations, which remain unproven. The DRI's position on the claims is not reflected in the order, and the agency is yet to issue a public statement in response.
