Synopsis
The DRI claims Ranya Rao's gold smuggling case involves international and hawala links, posing national security risks. The bail plea is contested due to serious concerns about the investigation's integrity and the potential for flight risk.Key Takeaways
- The DRI argues national security is at risk in Ranya Rao's case.
- There are concerns about international and hawala links.
- Evidence presented raises questions about the credibility of the investigation.
- Procedural violations during the arrest could impact bail decisions.
- The potential for flight risk if bail is granted is significant.
Bengaluru, March 12 (NationPress) The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) informed the court that the gold smuggling case involving actress Ranya Rao, the stepdaughter of a senior IPS officer of DGP rank, possesses international and hawala connections, categorizing it as a matter of national security.
Madhu Rao, the senior counsel for the DRI, opposed Ranya Rao's bail application in court on Wednesday, asserting that an investigation into the smuggling syndicate's involvement is crucial.
He stressed the importance of probing national security concerns and suspected hawala transactions.
"Considering the criminal intent behind this case, jail is the suitable location for her. The court should not grant bail solely because the accused is female," Rao remarked.
He further argued that the case has international connections and included smuggling facilitated by a protocol police officer.
"Investigation is needed to uncover how the money was transferred and how the funds were secured for purchasing the confiscated gold," he stated.
The counsel also noted that Ranya Rao has an identity card indicating her residency in Dubai, which heightens the risk of her fleeing the country.
"There is no legitimate reason for granting her bail, particularly since she has smuggled gold valued at Rs 12.56 crore. Furthermore, Rs 2.67 crore in cash and Rs 2.06 crore worth of gold have already been confiscated. On March 4, her residence was searched, and her arrest adhered to due legal procedures following Supreme Court guidelines," he presented.
He maintained that allowing bail for Ranya Rao could jeopardize the entire investigation, as she has not been cooperating with the authorities.
"The court must acknowledge the extensive gold smuggling operation. At this moment, the evidence and findings of the investigative agency should not be questioned. The court should recognize them as presented," he asserted.
"If bail is granted, there is a significant risk that she may flee the country, and vital evidence could be compromised. She is best suited to remain in custody at this stage," he added.
The counsel also informed the court that the second accused in this case has been arrested, and further investigations are ongoing.
He urged the court to consider the Supreme Court’s decision in the Radhika Agarwal case when deliberating on the bail request.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Kiran Javali, representing Ranya Rao, countered these arguments, claiming that DRI officials failed to present any declaration for the gold that Ranya Rao possessed.
"No supporting documentation was provided to validate the ownership of the gold. Section 102 of the Customs Act outlines specific guidelines regarding who must be present during searches," he contended.
He alleged that DRI officials did not comply with the Customs Act during the arrest.
"Ranya Rao was detained at the airport’s Green Channel, with Sneha and Harishankar Nair identified as witnesses. Numerous procedural violations were committed by DRI officials during the arrest," he stated.
"Due to these violations, bail should be granted. We are not debating Ranya's guilt or innocence, but procedural lapses by investigators justify bail," Javali emphasized.
He further argued that DRI officials failed to provide the "grounds of arrest" as mandated by Supreme Court guidelines established in the D.K. Basu case.
"They issued an arrest memo at the time of her detention but fell short of meeting the necessary legal requirements. Failure to comply with SC guidelines makes this a suitable case for bail," he asserted.
Javali pointed out several errors in the DRI’s objection petition, noting that earlier rulings by the Mumbai High Court annulled cases where Section 102 was not properly followed.
He also stressed that the accused must be informed of the charges against them and presented before a Gazetted Customs Officer or a Magistrate.
"According to legal provisions, the search must be conducted in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for it to hold validity," he stated.
Under Section 480 of the BNS Act, bail can be granted if the accused is a woman or has health issues.
"This is not a murder case, so conditional bail can be granted. The investigation can proceed if necessary. The accused has already cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so," Javali argued.
He also highlighted that authorities had been repeatedly questioning the accused without adhering to the required legal intervals.
"Once a statement is recorded, there should be a minimum six-hour gap before further questioning. However, this protocol was not followed," he said.
In conclusion, he asserted that the entire investigation process raises significant procedural concerns, rendering Ranya Rao’s continued remand unjustified.
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court had issued an interim order on Tuesday instructing the DRI not to arrest Jatin Vijaykumar Hukkeri, the husband of Ranya Rao, in the gold smuggling case. Hukkeri had approached the court claiming he was repeatedly summoned for investigation and harassed by DRI officials.
