Pramesh S Jain
The bail hearing at the special court of economic offence continued as advocate representing DRI filed objection to the bail plea on Tuesday was argued by the counsel represented by Ranya Rao on technical grounds .
Objecting to the bail,the DRI said that the accused has not present any document not declared the gold brought by her no supporting documents were presented to justify the possession of the gold and the way the accused carried the gold concealing in body and misusing the protocol and considering her travel history.
It needs 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 continue to challenge the investigation process.
DRI Failed to Follow Customs Act Rules,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, 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 .
Ranya Rao’s advocate contested the legality of the arrest by the DRI officials,citing D.K. Basu case verdict,they argued that the Supreme Court’s guidelines were not followed.
Failure to adhere to SC guidelines is being cited as a reason to grant bail to the accused.
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 argues 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 acused is a Woman and as per Section 480 of the BNS Act,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.
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 power to arrest.
Evasion of customs duty exceeding ₹50 lakh is considered a cognizable 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 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 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.
Article 22 of the Constitution has been properly followed.
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.Granting bail at this stage would hinder the investigation.
Moreover,during interrogation, the accused did not cooperate with the investigation.
The investigation is revealing several shocking details. Granting bail at this stage would derail 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,Lead to the destruction of evidence .
At this stage of the interrogation,the submitted documents should be considered as they are.They can be analyzed in detail during the trial.
Meanwhile the CBI continue 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 .
