I-T officials to record Ranya Rao's statement in Bengaluru Central Prison
, who is in Bengaluru Central Prison after being arrested in a gold-smuggling case.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The special court, in its order, said I-T officials could record her statements between Wednesday and Friday, 10am to 5pm. According to the order, "The applicants (IT officials) shouldn't ill-treat the accused. The applicants should videograph the entire interrogation with intimation to the accused. The accused should extend full cooperation to the interrogation," the special court observed.
Ranya, daughter of senior IPS officer Ramachandra Rao, was arrested on March 3 at Kempegowda International Airport after she landed from Dubai.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) sleuths had seized 14.2kg of gold bars strapped to her body.
Though the high court granted her bail last month, she was forced to remain in jail because the stringent Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974, has been invoked against her by the Centre.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
44 injuries on Sivaganga custodial death case victim, says post mortem report
Amidst the ongoing political turmoil in Tamil Nadu due to the police custodial death case of Ajith Kumar , the post-mortem report has revealed about 44 injuries on various parts of the victim's body. As per the post-mortem report, Ajith Kumar sustained injuries to the forehead, right eyebrow, leg and wrist. Injuries on the left forearm, wrist and ankle were also reported in the Sivaganga custodial death case victim. Ajith Kumar, who used to work as a temple guard in Tamil Nadu's Sivaganga, who allegedly died during police custody. He was initially detained for questioning regarding a theft at the Madapuram Kaliamman temple in Tirupuvanam. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World Click Here Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu BJP President Nainar Nagendran will visit the residence of Ajith Kumar, in Thirupuvanam, Sivagangai district, on Saturday to offer his condolences in person. On July 1, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin said the state government will transfer the investigation of the alleged custodial death of Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga district to the Central Bureau of Investigation . CM Stalin said that the Tamil Nadu Government will provide full cooperation for the CBI probe. Live Events Informing about the decision, Chief Minister Stalin said, "Considering that five members of the police department have been accused in this matter, and to ensure that no doubts or suspicions arise regarding the investigation, I have ordered that the case be transferred to the CBI. The Tamil Nadu Government will provide full cooperation for the CBI probe." Meanwhile, on July 1, the Tamil Nadu government informed that as part of an investigation, five police personnel have been arrested in connection to the alleged custodial death case. "In connection with the alleged custodial death of Ajith Kumar, who died during an inquiry conducted on 28th June in Sivaganga district, six police personnel were immediately suspended from duty on the same day. Based on the findings of the post-mortem, the case has now been converted into a criminal case, and five police personnel have been arrested in connection with the incident. The case has been officially registered at the Tirupuvanam Police Station under Section 196(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, and has been forwarded for judicial investigation," the Tamil Nadu government said. Family members of a temple guard from Sivaganga who died in police custody have alleged that the cause of death of the 28-year-old was not natural, and he passed away allegedly after being beaten and tortured during police interrogation.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Cyberabad EOW nabs couple in Rs 2.11 crore cheating scam
Hyderabad: The Cyberabad Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has arrested a husband and wife duo implicated in a sophisticated cheating and criminal breach of trust case, involving criminal conspiracy that led to the defrauding of victims to the tune of Rs 2.11 crore. The accused allegedly lured individuals with promises of high returns, offering 2% interest on deposits, and also enticed them with backdoor job placements. The arrested individuals have been identified as Panem Ujwala, apprehended in Kandukur, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, and Mahesh Panem, arrested in Bangalore. Both are natives of Kandukur and had previously resided in KPHB, Hyderabad. According to police, the arrests followed a complaint filed on 25 June by Purimitla Rathna of SBI Colony, Bowrampet, Bachupally, leading to the registration of a case under relevant sections of cheating and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments (TSPDFE) Act. Police reports indicate that the accused, operating through Christ Properties (OPC) Pvt Ltd at KPHB, enticed customers and investors under the guise of real estate investments. Panem Mahesh served as the director of the company, with his wife Panem Ujwala as the nominee. The couple specifically targeted retired employees, persuading them to invest in their company with the promise of lucrative returns, specifically a 2% monthly interest on their deposits. Mahesh Panem also operated an Agarwood farmland business and is accused of collecting substantial sums from unsuspecting victims through this venture. Furthermore, the duo attracted people by promising to secure backdoor jobs through another firm, Christ Global Technologies Pvt Ltd, also located in KPHB. In total, they allegedly collected Rs 2.11 crore from five depositors through these various schemes, ultimately cheating the victims. The accused were also involved with other firms, namely Shine Solutions and Western Acqua. K Prasad, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), EOW, stated that the accused collected Rs 2.11 crore from five victims, luring them with the promise of attractive returns of 2% interest on deposited amounts. To build trust and provide a semblance of security, the accused issued promissory notes, bank cheques, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to their victims as collateral. DCP Prasad further revealed, 'After collecting money from the victims, the accused paid monthly returns for a few months; however, they subsequently failed to fulfil their promise, closed their office, and absconded.' Investigations have revealed that the accused are also involved in five additional cases reported across Bachupally, Kollur, Chandanagar, and Madhapur within the Cyberabad Commissionerate limits.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court halt an Act passed by a State?
The story so far: Disposing of a writ and contempt petition, the Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court. What did SC order of July 2011 state? The Supreme Court, on July 5, 2011 issued an order stating that the State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities. The Court ordered the State to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs. The order said that the State shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos. The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists. The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Why was a contempt case filed? Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted 'to aid and assist the security forces' in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc. Section 5(2) of the Act further states that the members of the auxiliary force 'shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces…'. The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act. Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee). The legislature thus had addressed all the concerns observed by the Supreme Court. However, it was argued by the petitioners that the said enactment was not in consonance with the Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Why was contempt prayer rejected? There were reasons for rejecting the relief sought by petitioners. One, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the fact that all the directions issued by the Court had been complied to by the State of Chhattisgarh and necessary reports were submitted. Second, the Court said that every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt. The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed only on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. The Court therefore held that unless and until it is first established that the statute so enacted is in opposition to constitutional law or otherwise, it cannot be struck down. R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer and views are personal.
