Ranya Rao's mother challenges detention under smuggling law
HP Rohini, who filed the habeas corpus petition on Thursday, has asked the court to declare that any detention of her daughter under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act would be legally untenable. The matter came up for hearing before a vacation bench of Justices H P Sandesh and Ramachandra Huddar. 'The Centre is expected to file its response when the case resumes on June 3,' said an official in the know of the development.
Ranya Rao was taken into custody on March 3 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for allegedly bringing in 14.2 kilograms of foreign-origin gold from Dubai through Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport. Officials estimate the value of the seized consignment at ₹12.56 crore and claim that the accused attempted to evade customs duties totalling ₹4.83 crore by taping the gold to her body using bandages.
Also Read | Karnataka HC junks bail pleas of Ranya Rao, Tarun Raju in gold smuggling case
The Ministry of Finance, acting on a request from the DRI, issued a detention order through its Central Economic Intelligence Bureau on April 22. If enforced, the Cofeposa order would allow the authorities to hold Rao and her co-accused in custody for up to one year without regular judicial proceedings, even if they were to be granted bail.
Earlier in April, the karnataka high court issued a notice to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) over the bail application filed by Kannada actor Ranya Rao, who is currently in judicial custody for her alleged involvement in a gold smuggling case.
Ranya Rao, listed as the first accused in the case, was arrested on March 3 at the Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru. DRI officials claimed to have seized 14.2 kilograms of gold bars valued at ₹12.5 crore from her possession upon her arrival from Dubai. The agency said the gold, if imported legally, would have attracted import duties worth ₹4.83 crore under the current 38.5% rate.
Also Read | Why was Ranya Rao granted VIP protocol, police escort: HC
Rao, who is also the stepdaughter of Karnataka's Director General of Police K Ramachandra Rao, had earlier been denied bail by the Karnataka High Court. Her alleged accomplice, Telugu actor Tarun Konduru Raju, also remains in custody after his bail plea was rejected. According to the DRI, both actors were in the UAE at the same time, but Raju returned to Hyderabad while Rao landed in Bengaluru, where the smuggling was detected.
Following her arrest, two other individuals have also been taken into custody in connection with the case—Tarun Raju, identified as the second accused, and Sahil Jain, listed as the third accused. All three are presently under judicial custody, with their remand extended until April 21.
The development comes as on Monday, a Bengaluru Sessions Court also denied bail to Tarun Raju, upholding the earlier decision of the Magistrate Court. His plea was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, but the court found no justification to overturn the previous order.
Raju was arrested on March 10, a week after Rao's arrest, with officials confirming that he had accompanied her on a trip to Dubai prior to the alleged smuggling attempt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour 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.
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Providing justice for juveniles
Recently, the Karnataka High Court delivered a landmark judgment in criminal appeal no. 200093 of 2019, emphasising the crucial role that police and magistrates must play in identifying juvenile offenders at the very inception of a criminal case. It reiterated the need for vigilance when taking cognisance of offences involving juveniles. The court stressed that proper identification could prevent minors from being wrongly imprisoned with adults. Karthik, convicted of murdering Muniyappa, was the second accused in the case, while his father was the primary accused. Evidence established that Muniyappa had eloped with Chaitra, Karthik's sister, without the family's approval. Both Karthik and his father held a grudge against Muniyappa, and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed their involvement in the crime. When the matter reached the High Court on appeal, the issue of juvenility was raised. Under established legal principles, a plea of juvenility can be introduced at any stage of the proceedings — even after the trial has concluded. Juvenility refers to the claim that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed, in which case the individual should be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act). In this case, the offence occurred in 2011, when the JJ Act, 2000, was in force. Though the application asserting juvenility was filed in 2023, the High Court clarified that as per Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, the law applicable at the time of the offence must prevail. The court firmly stated that if the police or magistrate had paid closer attention at the time of arrest and trial, Karthik could have been identified as a juvenile and placed under the juvenile justice system. Instead, he spent 13 years in an adult prison — a grave miscarriage of justice. The JJ Act mandates that minors must be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Unfortunately, in numerous cases, juveniles are incorrectly treated as adults and placed in jails, where they are exposed to physical violence, sexual abuse, and are at risk of becoming hardened criminals. Acknowledging the violation of Karthik's rights, the court awarded him compensation of ₹50,000 for having spent 13 years in jail. Had he been produced before the JJB, he would have served a maximum of three years in a juvenile home. In a precedent-setting move, the court ordered the Additional Registrar General, who holds the rank of a Sessions Judge, to conduct the inquiry into Karthik's juvenility claim. This ensured the matter was handled swiftly and with due judicial authority. The court also directed that the judgment be submitted to the JJ High Court Committee, reinforcing the need for systemic awareness and reform. Newly appointed members and chairpersons of the JJBs must now be sensitised to the updated Karnataka Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2025. Additionally, police officials, advocates, magistrates, and judges of children's courts must be thoroughly informed about the 2025 rules. Too often, juveniles are treated as adults, despite their own pleas that they are underage. In many instances, magistrates deny them bail, and the psychological trauma of being placed in an adult jail can have long-lasting impacts. There have also been cases where juveniles arrested along with adult offenders are treated as adults and placed behind bars instead of observation homes meant for juveniles. In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court accepted a plea of juvenility raised 32 years after the alleged offence. In another judgment in criminal appeal No. 347 of 2018, the Supreme Court emphasised that a cautionary approach must be adopted when a plea of juvenility is raised. In this case, the appellant relied on a transfer certificate to support the claim of juvenility. However, the court reiterated that the determination of age must be based on the documents specified under the JJ Act. Since other official records indicated that the individual was not a minor at the time of the offence, the court rejected the plea of juvenility. The aim of the JJ Act is to provide a rehabilitative and reformative environment, allowing juveniles to reintegrate into society. This core purpose is undermined when minors are sent to adult prisons. Names have been changed to protect identity. Geeta Sajjanshetty is an Advocate at the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, and former Juvenile Justice Board Member, Kalaburagi
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.
