Karnataka High Court reserves order on bail pleas of actress Ranya Rao, co-accused in gold smuggling case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the bail applications filed by Kannada actress Ranya Rao alias Harshavardhini Ranya and co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju in connection with a gold smuggling case.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty reserved the order after hearing arguments from both sides.

The case stems from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) operation at Kempegowda international airport on March 3, during which gold bars worth Rs 12.56 crore were seized from Ranya Rao.

A follow-up search at her residence led to the recovery of gold jewellery worth Rs 2.06 crore and Rs 2.67 crore in cash.

Both Rao and Raju are facing serious charges under multiple sections of the Customs Act, including those related to illegal import and smuggling of gold.

Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing Rao, argued that the DRI did not follow proper procedures during the search and seizure.

He pointed to non-compliance with Section 102 of the Customs Act, which mandates that a person being searched has the right to be taken before a magistrate or a senior customs officer.

The counsel also highlighted irregularities in the search documents and claimed that the officer who conducted the search and made the arrest falsely claimed to be a gazetted officer.

Chouta further alleged that Rao’s family wasn’t properly informed about her arrest.

“Her husband was only informed over a phone call, not in writing, which is against the rules,” he said.

He also noted that since the alleged offence is compoundable and punishable with less than seven years in prison, it is common for bail to be granted.

He requested leniency on grounds that Rao is a woman and has already been in custody for over 49 days.

Raju’s lawyer argued that his client is being wrongly implicated just because of his business association with Rao.

He said that even if Raju handed over the gold in Dubai, it does not automatically mean he was part of a smuggling conspiracy—especially if Rao failed to declare the gold or pay customs duty upon arrival in India.

The DRI, however, strongly opposed the bail pleas.

Their counsel claimed that the smuggling operation was not a one-time incident but part of a much larger racket involving at least 100 kg of gold.

According to the investigation, Rao used to smuggle the gold into Bengaluru and hand it over to another accused, Sahil Jain, who has a criminal background.

The DRI said Raju, a US citizen, would procure the gold in Dubai and mislead authorities by booking tickets to destinations like Geneva or Thailand while actually handing over the gold to Rao.

They pointed out that Rao and Raju had traveled to Dubai together 31 times—25 of which involved return journeys on the same day.

Addressing the issue of whether proper arrest procedures were followed, the DRI claimed that Rao’s husband had in fact received the arrest information in writing. They also revealed that other leads, including how Rao accessed a protocol officer at the airport and the role of her father, a senior police officer, are yet to be investigated.

The court has now reserved its decision, and a verdict on the bail applications is expected soon.