The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant verdict in a high-profile gold smuggling case, dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of actor Ranya Rao. The petition challenged the preventive detention of Rao under the stringent Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
Court Bench Rejects Legal Challenge
A division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijayakumar A Patil heard the plea and ultimately rejected it on Friday. The detailed order copy from the court proceedings is yet to be made publicly available. The petition was filed by HP Rohini, Ranya Rao's mother, who argued that the authorities failed to follow the due process of law while placing her daughter under preventive detention.
Timeline of the Gold Smuggling Case
The case stems from an incident on March 3, when Ranya Rao was arrested after being caught at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport. Officials alleged she was attempting to smuggle a substantial 14.2 kilograms of gold into the country.
Subsequently, on April 22, the authorities invoked the COFEPOSA act to pass a preventive detention order against her. This law allows for the detention of individuals to prevent them from engaging in smuggling activities that could harm the country's foreign exchange resources.
Arguments from Both Sides
In her petition, Rohini contended that the due process was not adhered to in her daughter's detention. However, the authorities presented a counter-argument in court to justify their action.
They claimed that the detained actor was not acting alone but was allegedly working for a syndicate involved in organized gold smuggling. The officials emphasized that this was not a one-off incident, suggesting a pattern of behavior that necessitated the preventive measure under COFEPOSA to curb further illegal activity.
The court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition signifies a major setback for the defense and upholds the authorities' decision to use the powerful COFEPOSA act in this case. The legal proceedings highlight the serious approach taken by enforcement agencies against smuggling networks, even when they involve individuals from the public eye. The case continues to develop as further legal avenues may be explored.
