<p>Bengaluru: Ramifications for the country’s economy, hawala transactions to Dubai, international links, 27 times travel to Dubai this year, possession of a UAE resident ID card and entry to the Customs’ Green Channel to skip duty were among the grounds the court relied upon when rejecting bail to actor Ranya Rao.</p><p>The 33-year-old actor’s bail plea was rejected by the Special Court of Economic Offences judge Vishwanath Channabasappa Gowdar on Friday and a detailed order was released on Saturday. A copy of the order is with <em>DH</em>.</p><p>The court said the actor entering the Customs’ Green Channel (for passengers not having to declare any dutiable goods) at Terminal-2 of the Bengaluru airport showed her “criminal intention to evade the duty” pegged at Rs 4.83 crore.</p>.Ranya gold smuggling case: Karnataka govt orders actress' stepfather, DGP Ramachandra Rao, to go on compulsory leave.<p><strong>UAE resident card</strong></p><p>It was further stated that since Ranya possessed a Resident Identity Card of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and travelled to Dubai 27 times since January 2025, she was a possible flight risk.</p><p>“(It) is another factor which does not incline the court to extend discretionary relief of granting bail,” the court observed. The grounds set out by the accused no 1 (Ranya) in the bail application as well as during arguments are the subject matter of trial as the alleged offence is having serious ramifications on the entire economy of the country.”</p>.'Slapped 10-15 times, starved, made to sign 40 blank pages’: Ranya Rao levels serious charges on DRI officers.<p><strong>Hawala transaction</strong></p><p>The court noted the prevalence of a conspiracy by Ranya to collude with the state police protocol officer, the use of the hawala transaction to transfer money from India to Dubai and international links revealed in the preliminary probe, making her capable of manipulating and tampering with evidence and witnesses.</p><p>The court rejected Ranya being released on bail on account of being a woman as “the facts and circumstances leading to the case on hand are being detrimental to the national security and the revenue of the country”.</p><p>The special court also rejected the claim that there was no compliance under section 102 of the Customs Act before Ranya was physically searched as there was written consent by her on the record to show compliance. </p><p>The DRI made strong submissions to the court during the hearing of the bail plea.</p>.<p><strong>Larger syndicate</strong></p><p>Sophisticated smuggling methodology, involvement of a larger syndicate, international links, hawala payments and misuse of protocol were among the major objections raised by DRI. </p><p>Ranya’s counsel argued that the “entire proceedings conducted by effecting seizure as well as the voluntary statements claimed to be under Section 108 of the Customs Act are contrary to the provisions of law” and that the actor was ready to abide by the conditions of the court and her judicial custody was unwarranted. </p><p>Objecting to this, the DRI said the actor concealing gold was contrary to the prohibition imposed under the Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and Baggage Rules, 2016.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: Ramifications for the country’s economy, hawala transactions to Dubai, international links, 27 times travel to Dubai this year, possession of a UAE resident ID card and entry to the Customs’ Green Channel to skip duty were among the grounds the court relied upon when rejecting bail to actor Ranya Rao.</p><p>The 33-year-old actor’s bail plea was rejected by the Special Court of Economic Offences judge Vishwanath Channabasappa Gowdar on Friday and a detailed order was released on Saturday. A copy of the order is with <em>DH</em>.</p><p>The court said the actor entering the Customs’ Green Channel (for passengers not having to declare any dutiable goods) at Terminal-2 of the Bengaluru airport showed her “criminal intention to evade the duty” pegged at Rs 4.83 crore.</p>.Ranya gold smuggling case: Karnataka govt orders actress' stepfather, DGP Ramachandra Rao, to go on compulsory leave.<p><strong>UAE resident card</strong></p><p>It was further stated that since Ranya possessed a Resident Identity Card of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and travelled to Dubai 27 times since January 2025, she was a possible flight risk.</p><p>“(It) is another factor which does not incline the court to extend discretionary relief of granting bail,” the court observed. The grounds set out by the accused no 1 (Ranya) in the bail application as well as during arguments are the subject matter of trial as the alleged offence is having serious ramifications on the entire economy of the country.”</p>.'Slapped 10-15 times, starved, made to sign 40 blank pages’: Ranya Rao levels serious charges on DRI officers.<p><strong>Hawala transaction</strong></p><p>The court noted the prevalence of a conspiracy by Ranya to collude with the state police protocol officer, the use of the hawala transaction to transfer money from India to Dubai and international links revealed in the preliminary probe, making her capable of manipulating and tampering with evidence and witnesses.</p><p>The court rejected Ranya being released on bail on account of being a woman as “the facts and circumstances leading to the case on hand are being detrimental to the national security and the revenue of the country”.</p><p>The special court also rejected the claim that there was no compliance under section 102 of the Customs Act before Ranya was physically searched as there was written consent by her on the record to show compliance. </p><p>The DRI made strong submissions to the court during the hearing of the bail plea.</p>.<p><strong>Larger syndicate</strong></p><p>Sophisticated smuggling methodology, involvement of a larger syndicate, international links, hawala payments and misuse of protocol were among the major objections raised by DRI. </p><p>Ranya’s counsel argued that the “entire proceedings conducted by effecting seizure as well as the voluntary statements claimed to be under Section 108 of the Customs Act are contrary to the provisions of law” and that the actor was ready to abide by the conditions of the court and her judicial custody was unwarranted. </p><p>Objecting to this, the DRI said the actor concealing gold was contrary to the prohibition imposed under the Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and Baggage Rules, 2016.</p>