Ranya Rao, Tarun Raju smuggled over 31 kg of gold into India: DRI tells Bengaluru court

Bengaluru: Ranya Rao and Tarun Konduru Raju smuggled over 31 kg of gold into India, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has claimed.

The DRI revealed the new findings of its investigation when it successfully objected to the sessions court granting bail to Raju, 36, the second suspect in the gold smuggling case.

Raju’s bail petition was rejected by the CCH-64 LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge I P Naik on April 7.

Raju was arrested on March 9 by the DRI, six days after Ranya, 33, was arrested at the Kempegowda International Airport with concealed gold weighing 14.2 kg and worth Rs 12.56 crore.

A detailed court order has been accessed by DH.

The DRI’s objections were based on the fact that both Ranya and Raju were involved in the smuggling of the gold and in the hawala transactions to route the money required for the purchase. The DRI told the court that the duo smuggling over 31 kg of gold was a “non-bailable offence”.

The DRI further argued that Raju was a citizen of United States of America (USA), misused it and remained prone to absconding.

He earlier tried to escape the country, the DRI said and added that he was aware of his actions.

“Both the petitioner (Raju) and accused 1 (Ranya) have given voluntary statements disclosing the smuggling of the goods/gold and selling the same in India in the form of jewellery with the help of accused 3 (Sahil Sakariya Jain). Further, it was disclosed that they were also involved in the hawala transaction,” the DRI claimed.

On the other hand, Raju’s counsel argued that he was a US citizen and that his widowed mother was seriously ill. It was also told to the court that Raju’s mother owns and possesses “properties worth crores of rupees” in Bengaluru and hence he wouldn’t abscond.

“Nothing is seized from the petitioner and no incriminating materials found against the petitioner,” Raju’s counsel claimed.

They also claimed that Raju had a gold business in Dubai and other countries and hence the Customs Act, 1962, didn’t apply to him.

“The petitioner (Raju) sold the gold to accused 1 (Ranya) in Dubai. He is not aware that accused 1 has smuggled gold to India,” his counsel claimed.

The court heard both sides and despite Raju’s counsel claiming that he wouldn’t abscond, it observed that he remained a flight risk.

“As per the voluntary statement of both petitioner (Raju) and accused 1 (Ranya), they have travelled to Dubai 20-25 times and returned the same day to India. This itself disclosed their modus operandi,” the judge observed.

“On considering the entire fact, it reveals that community interest is involved in this case. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is flight risk and it gives the wrong signal to the society. By considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail,” the judge added.