BREAKING | Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Actress Ranya Rao, Co-Accused In Gold Smuggling Case

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (April 26) dismissed the bail petitions filed by Kannada Actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju, who have been arrested in the Gold Smuggling Case.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while dictating the order, said, "Petitions dismissed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited. 

The court had reserved its order earlier this week after hearing the parties. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. A subsequent search of her home had yielded gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.

Both the accused have been charged for the offence u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b), 135 (1)(a)(i)(a) 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), 135(1)(b)(i)(b) of the Customs Act. Sec.104(4)(a), 104(4)(b), 104(6)(a) and 104(6)(c) of the Act.

Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Rao had contended that the search and seizure carried out on her by the Directorate of Revenue Officials was in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act.

It was said “Section 102 of the Customs Act, compliance is not done. If it is violated then the entire seizure goes and everything else goes.”

Section 102 provides that persons to be searched may be required to be taken before a gazetted officer of customs or a magistrate.

Chouta had pointed to discrepancies in the mahazar and the notices issued to Rao before searching and seeking her consent and said, “SIO who searched me and led the arrest team is shown as a gazetted officer.”

Further, he had contended that the grounds of arrest, as mandated to be informed to the family members in writing, were not followed. He submitted that “They called my husband and informed him about the grounds of arrest. Thus it was done telephonically and not in writing as is mandated.”

Chouta had also informed the court that normally for offences under the Customs Act, bail is granted by Magistrate courts because the offence is punishable for less than 7 years, and compoundable. Further, the petitioner is a lady and has been in custody for over 49 days.

The counsel for Raju had 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.”

To a question put by the court that it is argued by DRI that money used by Raju to purchase the gold was funded by A-1 (Rao), the counsel had said “The statement's veracity has to be gone into during the trial. It also needs corroboration.”

He further added “Even If I take the statement on its face value, if customs duty is not paid by A-1 then A-2 cannot be held responsible. Only allegation against me is that I have travelled to Dubai and handed over gold to A-1 and she has not paid duty. To support this other than the statement recorded there is nothing else against A-2.”

Seeking bail the counsel had argued that “I have not dealt with or tried to evade taxes. I am not the person who was carrying the gold. The only allegation is that I have given the gold to A-1 (Rao) in Dubai.”

Opposing the bail petitions the DRI counsel had contended that “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. 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.”

Referring to the declarations revealed in the investigation, it was said, “In all there are 100 kg of gold, as per these declarations, made by all accused together and this is under investigation and application is made for recording additional statements of Rao and Raju, about these transactions.

Giving details of the modus operandi the DRI claimed that A-2 Raju is a US citizen who would procure the gold in Dubai and make a declaration of him either visiting, Geneva or Thailand, but later hand it over to Rao who would smuggle it in Bangalore.

Further it was said that “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.”

DRI also said that the grounds of arrest were provided to the husband of A-1 (Rao) in writing.

To a query made by the court about whether DRI probed how Rao was provided with a protocol officer, it was submitted that the angle is not yet probed and only the disposal of gold was being investigated. The statement of Ramchandra Rao (DGP/father of Rao) was not recorded.

Case Title: Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Tarun Konduru Raju AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Case No: Criminal Petition 5047/2025 c/w Criminal Petition 5432/2025

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta and advocate Bipin Hegde

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151