Karnataka High Court Rejects Bail Pleas of Actress Ranya Rao and Co-Accused in Gold Smuggling Case

On Saturday, April 26, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail applications filed by Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and her co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju in connection with a major gold smuggling case.

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, while dictating the decision, simply stated, "Petitions dismissed," with a detailed order expected to follow.

Earlier this week, the High Court had reserved its verdict after completing the hearing. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had apprehended Rao at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport on March 3, seizing gold bars valued at ₹12.56 crore. A subsequent search at her residence led to the recovery of gold jewelry worth ₹2.06 crore and ₹2.67 crore in cash.

Both Rao and Raju have been charged under various sections of the Customs Act — specifically, Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(a)(i)(a), 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), 135(1)(b)(i)(b), along with Sections 104(4)(a), 104(4)(b), 104(6)(a), and 104(6)(c).

Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Rao, argued that the DRI’s search and seizure operations were not conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act. He highlighted violations of Section 102, which mandates that a person about to be searched must be given the option to appear before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. Chouta pointed out procedural lapses, including discrepancies in the mahazar (seizure report) and notices issued before obtaining consent for the search, claiming that the searching officer himself was shown as the gazetted officer.

Chouta also contended that the grounds of arrest were only communicated telephonically to Rao’s husband instead of being furnished in writing, as required by law. Emphasizing that offenses under the Customs Act are compoundable and carry less than a seven-year sentence, he urged the court to consider that Rao, being a woman, had already spent over 49 days in custody.

Meanwhile, Raju’s counsel argued that there was no direct evidence implicating him. He maintained that Rao could have purchased the gold in Dubai independently and that his association with her through a business venture alone should not be grounds for his implication. It was also submitted that apart from a recorded statement, there was no corroborative material against him.

He further contended that even if Raju had handed over gold to Rao abroad, he should not be held liable for her failure to pay customs duty upon arrival in India.

In opposition, the DRI’s counsel asserted that the investigation had uncovered a broader network involving Rao, Raju, and a third accused, Sahil Jain — a person allegedly known for gold smuggling activities. They claimed that beyond the gold seized at the airport, other transactions linked the accused to the smuggling of nearly 100 kg of gold, as revealed through multiple statements.

The DRI alleged that Raju, a U.S. citizen, would procure gold in Dubai, misrepresent his travel destinations as Geneva or Thailand, and then hand over the gold to Rao, who would smuggle it into Bengaluru. Investigations showed that Rao and Raju had traveled together to Dubai 31 times, of which 11 instances had been specifically tracked, with many instances of same-day returns without cancelling onward tickets to Geneva.

On the matter of informing family members, the DRI maintained that the grounds of arrest were provided in writing to Rao’s husband.

When the court queried whether the DRI had investigated the alleged misuse of protocol privileges to facilitate smuggling activities, the agency said that the focus remained on tracing the disposal of smuggled gold and that the statement of Rao’s father, a DGP-rank officer, had not yet been recorded.