Bengaluru: In a significant development in the high-profile gold smuggling case involving actress Harshavardhini Ranya, her legal counsel has alleged serious procedural violations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), asserting that both her arrest and the seizure of alleged contraband are unlawful under the Customs Act.
Appearing before Justice S Vishwajith Shetty of the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on Ranya’s bail petition, Senior Counsel Sandesh Chouta argued on Thursday that the customs officials failed to comply with Section 102 of the Customs Act, which governs the procedure during personal searches conducted under Sections 100 and 101.
According to the provision, if the individual being searched demands it, they must be promptly taken to the nearest gazetted customs officer or a magistrate. The officer conducting the search is authorized to detain the individual temporarily for this purpose. However, in Ranya’s case, Chouta contended that this safeguard was completely disregarded, rendering the seizure invalid.
Further intensifying his argument, Chouta stated that Ranya’s arrest itself was flawed, as the legal requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest under Section 50A of the Customs Act was violated.
“The whole grounds of arrest were communicated to her husband telephonically which is a clear violation of Section 50A of the Customs Act”, he submitted.
He also alleged that Ranya was made to sign blank sheets, a claim that raises concerns over the integrity of documentation in the case. The actress has reportedly been in custody for over 45 days, and her counsel emphasized that the offences she is charged with are compoundable and triable by a magistrate, reinforcing the argument for bail.
The High Court, after hearing the submissions, adjourned further hearing to April 21, directing the DRI to file its objections to the bail plea on or before that date without delay.
Ranya approached the High Court after both the Special Court for Economic Offences and the sessions court rejected her bail applications earlier.
This case has drawn significant public attention, not only due to the involvement of a public figure but also due to the legal questions raised surrounding arrest protocols and constitutional safeguards.
