Comment On Ranya Rao | 'Was Using North Kannada Dialect' : BJP MLA Tells Karnataka High Court In Plea To Quash FIR

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) directed the State to secure the entire investigation and trial court records, including the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) report and chargesheet in the gold smuggling case against Kannada actress Ranya Rao, to ascertain the veracity of a remark allegedly made by BJP MLA Basangouda R. Patil Yatnal about her.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the petition filed by the BJP MLA challenging the FIR registered over his comments made about Ranya Rao in connection with the gold smuggling case against her.

Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai (appearing for Yatnal) argued that the statement was made in light of the 'common knowledge' that gold and other contrabands are smuggled either in capsules consumed or hidden in parts of the body.

“…It's a North Karnataka dialect. Gold articles are usually smuggled, it's common knowledge- either capsules consumed or hidden in parts of the body. 14.2 kg of gold-how can a person carry it? Let my friend (complainant's counsel) produce the panchnama to see where DRI says it was hidden," he said. 

To this the court orally said, “…Sometimes, the Kannada in English should not get transliterated,". 

The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 25, 2026 and the interim order of stay on proceedings would subsist till that date, the court clarified. The case proceedings are currently before the Magistrates' court. 

Before the High Court, the BJP MLA from Bijapur City Constituency has sought the quashing of FIR registered at High Grounds Police Station Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 79 [word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman] BNS. 

The petitioner was booked by the police based on a complaint filed by Ms. Akula Anuradha, who claims to be a family friend of the actress.

It has been alleged that Yatnal, while speaking on the floor of the assembly and then to the media on March 17, 2025, about the gold smuggling case, had made vulgar remarks about Rao regarding the mode of carrying gold.

Before the High Court, the complainant alleged that the remarks that came from the MLA was 'vulgar, disrespectful, and defamatory', while underscoring that Rao is a multi-language actress with a respectable standing in society.

Advocate Mahesh Y.L., appearing for respondent No.2 (complainant), submitted that according to the DRI chargesheet, the alleged gold was found on her body, specifically on her legs. He also produced a snippet from a news channel where the defamatory statement was allegedly made by the petitioner.

“…I don't want to read the statement myself……The intention behind the alleged statement according to the(petitioner) is that there are two ministers, in order to reveal their names”.

“…He cannot escape saying that it's North Kannada dialect”, the complainant's counsel further argued.

Earlier, during the April 2025 hearing, when the High Court had stayed the FIR, the complainant's counsel had argued that the legislator's statement in the media harmed Rao's dignity.

Context

To recap, Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao was released from Central Prison, on April 22 after completing her 1-year detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act in a case pertaining to alleged gold smuggling. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed her petition challenging her detention.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3, 2025. A subsequent search of her home had yielded gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.

The detention order under COFEPOSA Act was passed while the actress was in judicial custody after being arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on allegations of smuggling gold, whereafter she was booked for offences 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.

Case Title: Sri Basangouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Crl.P. 4600/2025