
Economic offences threaten the economy: Karnataka HC while rejecting bail pleas of Ranya Rao and Tarun Konduru in Bengaluru gold smuggling case
Justice Vishwajit Shetty rejected the bail pleas of Ranya Rao alias Harshavardini Ranya, 33, and her associate Tarun Konduru alias Virat Konduru, 36, on April 26, citing the danger of economic offences, the huge quantity of gold smuggled by the actors, and government facilities accorded to Rao at the Bengaluru airport.
'Unlike conventional crimes, which affect individuals or specific groups, economic offences have the potential to threaten the stability of the national economy. Economic offences are grave and they always pose a threat to the health of the economy of the country,' Justice Vishwajit Shetty said while rejecting the bail petitions of the two actors.
'The modus operandi of the accused, the number of their visits to Dubai, and filing false declarations in Dubai customs on all such visits by the accused to Dubai, raises a serious doubt that in all the earlier visits also chances of gold smuggling cannot be ruled out. Therefore, merely for the reason that the alleged offences are compoundable and punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, bail cannot be granted as a thumb rule,' Justice Shetty said in his 28-page order.
The high court also pointed to the huge quantity of gold allegedly smuggled, over 100 kg according to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and the extension of government facilities like VIP protocols to Ranya Rao, the step-daughter of senior Karnataka IPS officer K Ramachandra Rao, to reject their bail.
'Considering the manner in which accused no.1 has managed to smuggle huge quantity of gold to India, for which she has also made use of the Government facilities provided to her, and since investigation of the case is still under progress, the benefit of the proviso to Section 480 of BNSS, 2023, cannot be extended to her at this stage,' Justice Shetty ruled.
'Accused no 1 is said to be a cine star, who is provided protocol and a government vehicle, which would prima facie go to show her high connections. Accused no 2 is said to be a citizen of the US. Therefore, the chances of accused 1 and 2 fleeing away from justice also cannot be completely ruled out at this stage,' Justice Shetty said.
Justice Shetty said there is the possibility of involvement of more people in the smuggling racket on account of the government facilities extended to Ranya Rao at the Bengaluru International Airport.
The Karnataka High Court referred to a statement by Basavaraj, a police constable who was escorting Ranya Rao at the airport, and a police car driver, Prakash B, in its order to deny bail to the actors. 'The statement of Prakash B, the driver of the government vehicle which was used by accused no.1, was also recorded by the Investigation Officer, which would prima facie go to show that accused no.1 was facilitated with an escort and a government vehicle,' the HC noted.
'The material on record would further go to show that Basavaraj has stated that he was asked by his Senior Officer Ramachandra Rao (DGP) to assist his family members and relatives by extending protocol during their arrival and departure and it is in this manner he was providing protocol assistance to accused no.1 since past few years. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the prosecution, involvement of others in the present case cannot be completely ruled out,' the court said.
The HC also rejected the arguments of the advocates for the actors that DRI did not comply with the mandated search and arrest process during the interception of Ranya Rao.
Ranya Rao was intercepted by DRI at the Bengaluru International Airport on arrival from Dubai on March 3, 2025, with 14.2 kg of gold worth ₹ 12.56 crore concealed on her person. After her arrest, the DRI investigations showed that Ranya Rao was assisted in passing the gold through Dubai customs by Virat Konduru by using his US citizen credentials and that the smuggled gold was handed to a hawala businessman, Sahil Jain, in India for disposal.
On April 22, the Centre issued orders for the detention of Ranya Rao, Konduru, and Jain under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (Cofeposa) Act. The detention order means that Ranya Rao, Konduru and Jain will remain in prison for up to a year.
DRI told the Karnataka high court that the three were part of a gold smuggling syndicate which had smuggled 100 kg of gold into India since 2024 — apart from the 14.2 kg of gold worth ₹12.56 crore that was seized on March 3 when Ranya Rao was intercepted.
DRI has claimed to have found evidence through customs declarations and investigations of the accused of as many as 11 of 34 trips undertaken by the actors to Dubai in 2024-25 involving smuggling of gold.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC questions sessions court's John Doe order in Dharmasthala mass burial case
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed by a sessions court in the city, which had restrained a Dakshina Kannada-based digital media house from allegedly reporting defamatory news linking the family members of Harshendra Kumar D and the temple administration to the alleged burying of multiple human remains for nearly two decades in Dharmasthala. However, the court remitted the matter to the sessions court with a direction to consider the interlocutory applications afresh, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order while partly allowing the petition filed by Kudla Rampage, which challenged the legality of the injunction order dated 18 July, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru. Making clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the civil suit pending before the sessions court, or on the criminal proceedings or the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations, the High Court said that all the contentions, except the one considered in this petition, shall remain open. It also directed the petitioner and other parties to extend their full cooperation to the sessions court in passing the necessary orders.


Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Restaurant owners move Bombay HC against police raids despite earlier court order allowing ‘herbal hookah'
Twelve restaurant owners from the city serving herbal and tobacco-free hookah have approached the Bombay High Court against visits by police officers without notice and threatening the restaurants to shut down and stop serving herbal hookah. The petitioners claimed that such actions were being taken despite the HC verdict of August 2019 which permitted restaurants to serve herbal hookah and the same was complied with by the owners. A bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea by 12 restaurant owners argued through advocates Rajendra Rathod and Dhruv Jain. The petitioners include owners/operators of Ustaadi at Crawford Market, The Nest in Bandra, Rustico in Fort, Faham restaurant in Kala Ghoda among others. The high court granted time to state government lawyer to take instructions to respond to the plea and granted liberty to the petitioners to amend the petition with additional information. The actions were allegedly being taken based on June 6, 2025 circular of the home department to police which stipulated that if illegal hookah parlours are found at any location, the responsible police officers must be held accountable and strict action should be taken against them. 'These acts of illegally and unlawfully shutting down the service of herbal hookah at the petitioners' restaurants and threatening to shut down the petitioners' restaurants completely, are not only causing huge monetary losses to the petitioners but also directly affecting the earning capacity and livelihood of their employees,' the plea stated. The petitioners sought direction from the court to the respondent police authorities not to enter their restaurants for any purpose including search without following due procedure under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioners also sought direction to the authorities to comply with the August 2019 order of the HC enabling them to serve herbal hookah and to stop 'illegal and unlawful raids' and threats to the petitioners' restaurants. The plea also sought no coercive action against petitioners for serving herbal or tobacco-free hookah at their establishments. The petitioners also sought direction to authorities that the June 6 circular would not be applicable to them as they are serving herbal/tobacco-free hookah. The HC is likely to hear the plea next on August 6.


Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Court at place where complainant woman resides can take up Dowry Act cases, rules Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that, in cases under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, courts at the place where the victim woman takes shelter and temporarily resides are empowered to conduct an inquiry and trial in respect of those offences. The bench of Justice G Gireesh issued the ruling in a petition filed by a 34-year-old woman from Mavelikkara, challenging the decision of the judicial first class magistrate court-I, Mavelikkara, which had returned her complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the alleged incident occurred elsewhere. The petitioner, an estranged wife, had filed a complaint before the JFMC alleging that her in-laws demanded and accepted dowry in the form of gold ornaments at her husband's family house in Thiruvalla, in connection with her marriage. Initially, the JFMC recorded her sworn statement and proceeded with the complaint. However, her in-laws challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, following which the magistrate returned the complaint. This prompted the petitioner to approach HC. Upon reviewing the case, the court held that if the victim of an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act suffers mental trauma due to the offence at a place where she temporarily resides, the court having jurisdiction over that place is competent to entertain the complaint and proceed with an enquiry and trial. This is in view of the provisions contained in Section 199 of BNSS. Accordingly, HC directed JFMC, Mavelikkara, to accept the complaint and proceed with the inquiry and trial.