Bengaluru: Actor Ranya Rao’s lawyer told the special court on Wednesday that there were procedural lapses on the part of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during her arrest, making her eligible for conditional bail.
According to senior advocate Kiran Javali, the DRI failed to follow Customs Act rules and officials committed several procedural lapses during the arrest. “We are not debating whether Ranya is guilty or not, but procedural lapses by investigators warrant bail. DRI officials issued an arrest memo during arrest, but did not provide ‘grounds of arrest’. This is a must as per guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the D K Basu case,” he submitted.
It was alleged that though the DRI invoked Section 102 of the Customs Act, the agency did not adhere to the rules attached to this section. There are clear definitions of powers granted to DRI officials while conducting searches and verifications, it was argued. Apparently, a search has to be carried out in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate for it to be valid.
In documents submitted by the DRI, it has been stated that Ranya was detained at Bengaluru airport’s Green Channel on March 3 after over 1.4 kg of gold was found strapped to her waist and calf. Two persons – Sneha and Harishankar Nair – have been mentioned as witnesses.
The documents reveal that Ranya had said that she has nothing to declare as she entered through a Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD) of the Green Channel with her luggage. Authorities were alerted when the DFMD started to beep. While nothing incriminating was found in her luggage, a search led to the seizure of the 24K gold bars. A few of them were inside her shoes and in her trouser pockets as well, the DRI has claimed.
While Ranya consented to the search initially, she challenged the procedure later. According to her lawyer, the accused must be informed of the charges against her/him and presented before a Gazetted Customs Officer or a Magistrate. Javali also insisted that his client is a woman and that itself entitles her to bail.
“This is not a murder case and conditional bail can be granted. Investigation can continue if required. The accused has already cooperated with the investigation and will continue to do so. She has been repeatedly questioned by the authorities. Even procedure was not followed during questioning. Once a statement is recorded, there should be a minimum six-hour gap before further questioning. As per the remand petition, my client’s statement was recorded at 1.30 am on March 3. Summons were again issued at 7 am on March 4.
