The bail hearing at the Special Court of Economic Offences continued as advocates representing DRI filed an objection to the bail plea on Tuesday, which was argued against by the counsel representing Ranya Rao on technical grounds.
Objecting to the bail, the DRI said that the accused had not declared the gold brought by her or provided supporting documents to justify the possession of the gold. The DRI also said that the way the accused carried the gold, concealing it and misusing the protocol, and considering her travel history, it needs a detailed probe, and granting bail at this juncture would hamper the investigation.
However, countering the arguments, the defense stated that as per Section 102 of the Customs Act, clear guidelines exist regarding who must be present during a search.
While DRI insists that proper procedures were followed, Ranya’s advocate continued to challenge the investigation process.
The advocate said that DRI officials did not adhere to the provisions of the Customs Act during the arrest. Ranya Rao was detained at the airport’s Green Channel, and several procedural lapses were committed by DRI officials during the arrest.
“Due to these lapses, bail must be granted,” argued senior advocate Kiran Javali, presenting Ranya Rao. “We are not debating whether Ranya is guilty or not but procedural violations by investigators warrant bail,” he stated .
DRI officials issued an arrest memo at the time of arrest, stating the reasons for detention. They did not provide “grounds of arrest” as per the Supreme Court guidelines set in the D.K. Basu case, Mr. Javali submitted.
The arguments also cited Customs Act Section 102 invoked in Ranya Rao’s case, but procedural lapses. The act defines the powers of DRI officials in conducting searches and verifications. Ranya had initially consented to the search, but later challenged the DRI’s allegations. Ranya’s legal team argued that there are multiple errors in the documents submitted by DRI in their objection petition.
As per legal provisions, the search must be conducted in the presence of either a gazetted officer or a magistrate for it to be valid. The accused is a woman and as per Section 480 of the BNS, bail can be granted if the accused is a woman or is suffering from health issues. This is not a murder case, so conditional bail can be granted. Investigation can continue if required. The accused has already cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so, Ranya’s legal team submitted.
Authorities have been repeatedly questioning the accused. Once a statement is recorded, there should be a minimum six-hour gap before further questioning. However, this protocol was not followed by the authorities.
Countering the argument, SPP Madhu Rao argued that the offense falls under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. Under Section 104, there is the provision to arrest.
Evasion of customs duty exceeding ₹50 lakh is considered a cognisable and non-bailable offense, as stated in Section 105 of the Customs Act. In this case, the accused was found carrying gold on their body, Mr. Rao submitted.
“It is an interception case. We intercepted it in the morning, afternoon, and night. Moreover, there was clear information that the accused was bringing the gold. However, they exited through the Green Channel. This has been completely recorded in the mahajar (panchnama) that we have prepared.
“After crossing the Green Channel, it became very clear that they had brought gold with no intention of declaring it. At this point, a baggage inspection was conducted, but nothing was found in it”, Mr. Rao submitted before the court while objecting to the bail.
At this point, the accused denies having anything. Then, customs officials proceed with a personal check. This is permitted under Section 102 of the Customs Act. Even then, she does not mention anything about the gold. Upon inspection, gold was found hidden in her jeans, waist, shoes, and shoe base. It was also discovered that she had taped gold biscuits to her thigh using a medical bandage. Later, the gold was weighed. The inspection was conducted by an official authorized by customs. A total of three spot summons were issued, and statements were recorded from relevant individuals.
Therefore, DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) did not violate her freedom in any way., he contended. He further said that a summons was issued to the protocol officer of the state police department, and their statement was recorded. In the statement, they mentioned: “Senior officials of the police department occasionally instruct us to provide protocol to their relatives.” Hence, they admitted to granting protocol in this case.
“The police officer admitted before DRI officials that they provided the protocol based on instructions from department authorities”, Mr. Rao stated in his argument.
Additionally, another person was also summoned, and their statement was recorded. After crossing the Green Channel, the person made a call to Ranya. This call was intercepted by the DRI. An arrest memo has been issued. It is unclear which procedure was not followed, as claimed by the accused’s lawyer, Mr. Rao stated.
The grounds of arrest have also been provided, along with a detailed explanation of the necessity of the arrest.
The DRI also seized gold, cash, and documents from the accused’s house, for which a separate mahajar (panchnama) was prepared. There are indications of a syndicate involvement and international links in this case. Additionally, the source of the cash found at the accused’s residence needs to be traced. The preliminary investigation clearly shows that the preparations made in Dubai for purchasing gold were specifically for smuggling. Moreover, a detailed investigation is required to uncover the hawala transactions, international links, and the syndicate network.
At this stage, bail should not be granted under any circumstances. Moreover, during interrogation, the accused did not cooperate with the investigation.
She used various links for smuggling and operated through hawala channels. The investigation is still ongoing, and granting bail at this stage could influence witnesses, allow her to flee the country, and lead to the destruction of evidence. At this stage of the interrogation, the submitted documents should be considered as they are. They can be analysed in detail during the trial.
Meanwhile, the CBI continues investigations into the Ranya Rao financial transactions and her network. The officials reportedly visited the airport and questioned the staff and officials. They are likely to approach the court to seek the custody of Ranya Rao for further questioning.
Published – March 12, 2025 09:11 pm IST