The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, April 22, reserved its order on the bail applications filed by Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and her co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju, both arrested in connection with a high-profile gold smuggling case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, who heard the arguments from all sides, reserved the verdict for a later date. The case came into focus after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya Rao at the Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. Following this seizure, officials searched her residence and reportedly recovered gold jewellery valued at ₹2.06 crore along with Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.
The accused have been booked under several provisions of the Customs Act, including Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(a)(i)(a), 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), 135(1)(b)(i)(b) as well as Sections 104(4)(a), 104(4)(b), 104(6)(a) and 104(6)(c).
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing Ranya Rao, argued that the search and seizure conducted by DRI officials did not comply with the legal procedures outlined under the Customs Act.
Section 102 mandates that any person subjected to a search must be taken before a gazetted customs officer or a magistrate. Chouta pointed out inconsistencies in the official search records and claimed that the Seizing Officer (SIO) who conducted the search was wrongly shown as a gazetted officer.
He further argued that the DRI violated the procedure by failing to inform Rao’s family in writing about the grounds of her arrest. According to him,
They called my husband and informed him about the grounds of arrest. Thus it was done telephonically and not in writing as is mandated.
The advocate also emphasized that under the Customs Act, bail is generally granted by Magistrate courts since the offense is compoundable and carries a punishment of less than seven years. He also highlighted that Rao is a woman who has already spent over 49 days in custody.
Meanwhile, Raju’s counsel raised doubts about the allegations against his client, arguing that his link to the smuggled gold was only circumstantial. He informed the court that:
"He need not hand over the gold to A-1, she could have purchased it in Dubai on her own. I am being implicated in the case only because I have a company with her."
When the court pointed out the DRI's argument that Raju had financed the gold purchase, his counsel responded:
The statement's veracity has to be gone into during the trial. It also needs corroboration.
The counsel stressed that even if the statements were accepted, failure to pay customs duty by A-1 (Rao) does not automatically make A-2 (Raju) responsible. He said,
The DRI, however, strongly opposed the bail pleas, presenting further claims to the court. The agency argued that beyond the seized gold, their investigation had linked the accused to a wider smuggling network.
Apart from the seizure in the interception case, we have found other cases. A-1 (Rao) used to smuggle the gold and hand it over to A-3 (Sahil Jain) in Bengaluru, who has antecedents of smuggling,
The counsel further revealed:
In all the transactions apart from the interception case, we have got links of A-2 (Raju) giving the gold, A-1 (Rao) receiving the gold and giving it to Jain.
According to the DRI, the accused collectively declared that the total quantity of smuggled gold could be around 100 kilograms. The agency also informed the court that it had filed an application to record additional statements from both Rao and Raju regarding these transactions.
The DRI outlined the alleged modus operandi, stating that Raju, a U.S. citizen, procured gold in Dubai and sometimes covered his tracks by declaring fake trips to Geneva or Thailand, before passing the gold to Rao, who would smuggle it into Bengaluru.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Extends Interim Stay on Waqf Board’s Power to Issue Marriage Certificates
"They (A-1, A-2) have travelled 31 times to Dubai and out of that 11 times we have revealed it. In the remand application it was given that 25 times, they A-1 and A-2 have gone to Dubai and came back the same day and not cancelled tickets to Geneva," the DRI submitted.
Responding to the allegations regarding the arrest process, the DRI also clarified to the court that the grounds of arrest were indeed provided in writing to Rao’s husband.
The court also inquired whether the agency had probed how Rao secured the services of a protocol officer at the airport. The DRI replied that this angle was still under investigation, and for now, their focus remained on the disposal and movement of the smuggled gold. The agency further confirmed that the statement of Rao's father, Ramchandra Rao, who is also a senior police officer, had not yet been recorded.
