A special court in Bengaluru has denied bail to Telugu actor Tarun Raju, the second accused in the high-profile gold smuggling case involving Kannada actress Ranya Rao.
The court’s order, accessed by News18, highlights forensic evidence and testimony that allegedly confirm Raju’s involvement in a sophisticated smuggling network operating between Dubai, Geneva, and India. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru, has accused Raju of aiding the illegal import of gold worth over Rs 12.56 crore, leading to customs duty evasion of Rs 4.83 crore.
After hearing extensive arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the court ruled that granting bail to Raju at this stage could compromise the investigation. The judge observed that the offense carried significant implications for India’s economic security and legitimate trade, stating, “The nature of the offence endangers the economic security of the country and affects genuine traders.”
The court also noted that evidence pointed to a larger international smuggling syndicate, warning that Raju’s release could lead to the destruction of crucial links in the probe. His US citizenship and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status, combined with his frequent international travel, were deemed potential flight risks.
The prosecution firmly opposed Raju’s bail plea, citing forensic evidence, digital records, and testimony that allegedly implicated him in smuggling gold into India. Investigators revealed that Raju played a critical role by collecting gold from Dubai and arranging its clearance through fraudulent export declarations. These documents falsely claimed the gold was bound for Geneva or Bangkok while it was, in reality, smuggled into India.
The DRI stated that Raju and the prime accused, Ranya Rao, jointly established Vira Diamonds, a Dubai-based precious metals and diamond trading firm, in 2023. Although Raju claimed to have exited the partnership in December 2024, the prosecution alleged that he remained actively involved in gold transactions linked to the smuggling racket.
According to the DRI’s complaint, Raju’s role in the smuggling operation involved leveraging his US passport to facilitate the movement of gold through customs. Since he did not require a separate visa for Dubai, he could declare goods more easily. Investigators found that gold was being purchased in Dubai under his name and then smuggled into India through strategic loopholes in customs clearance procedures.
DRI sources also revealed that the operation relied on hawala transactions to move money from India to Dubai. It was further alleged that the smuggling syndicate had influential contacts in Geneva and Bangkok who assisted in the illegal trade.
Reportedly, Raju’s legal team argued that he was being wrongfully framed based on a delayed voluntary statement from the prime accused, Ranya Rao. They contended that he had no involvement in the gold smuggling activities post-December 2024, adding that the gold in question was dutiable but not contraband.
His lawyers pointed out that there was no direct evidence linking Raju to the possession or sale of the smuggled gold, arguing that Sections 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act were inapplicable to him.
The defense also claimed that Raju’s arrest had procedural lapses, citing Supreme Court rulings such as Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. Additionally, his legal team dismissed the prosecution’s concerns about his US citizenship and travel history, stating that his family—his widowed mother and younger brother—resided permanently in Bengaluru, making him unlikely to abscond.
Reportedly, the prosecution refuted Raju’s defense, presenting five statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act that allegedly confirmed his role in the smuggling operation. These statements indicated that Raju’s visit to Dubai on March 3, 2025, was specifically to collect gold, which he later handed over to the prime accused before returning to Hyderabad the same day. Flight tickets for the trip were booked using funds transferred by Rao, further linking Raju to the smuggling network.
Investigators also pointed out that this was not Raju’s first involvement in gold smuggling, alleging that he had played a similar role in at least two previous operations.
A major reason for denying bail was the risk that Raju might flee the country if released. His frequent international travel history—25 trips to Dubai with the prime accused—raised concerns about his ability to abscond and disrupt the investigation.
The prosecution stressed that this case was not merely about tax evasion but a serious crime with implications for national economic security. “This is not just a case of duty evasion. It threatens the economic fabric of the country,” the prosecution argued, urging the court to reject bail.
Meanwhile, Ranya Rao, the prime accused in the case, remains in judicial custody after being arrested at Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport on March 3, 2025, while allegedly smuggling 14.8 kilograms of gold from Dubai. Her previous bail plea was rejected on March 14, but she has once again appealed for bail.
In its detailed order rejecting Raju’s bail, the court concluded that the allegations against him fell squarely within the ambit of Sections 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The court ruled that his involvement in abetting or assisting the prime accused was sufficient to deny bail at this stage of the investigation.
On the other hand, Ranya Rao, in a letter written to the Additional Director General (ADG) of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), claimed that she is innocent. One part of the letter reportedly read, “One official threatened to expose my father’s identity, despite him having no involvement. I was deprived of sleep and proper food in DRI custody. No mahazar was drawn, no search was conducted, and nothing was recovered from me. Some officials are trying to protect other passengers while framing me.”
