Karnataka HC dismisses moms plea challenging detention of actor Ranya in gold smuggling case
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by HP Rohini, questioning the preventive detention order against her daughter, accused-actress Harshavardini Ranya, under the provisions of the COFEPOSA in the gold smuggling case. A division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A Patil passed the order, dismissing the petition challenging the detention order passed by the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. Ranya was intercepted on March 3, 2025, at Kempegowda International Airport after her arrival from Dubai. Rohinis contention was that the copy of the pen drive, a piece of evidence, was not made available to Ranya. However, it was stated that the pen drive was taken to the prison and was played on a laptop. On April 27, she asked for the pen drive to be delivered to her lawyer. Rohini accepted the pen drive on May 17. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the order of detention was vitiated, the court said. Rohini said that two pages of the document supporting the detention are in Kannada and Ranya is unable to read the same, and hence the order of detention was vitiated. The court said the non-supply of the translation of the pages cannot be fatal to the detention order since the said two pages are not part of what was relied upon at all. Further, the order of detention specifically records that Ranyas applications for bail have been rejected. However, the detention order also records that there is every possibility of the detenue being released on bail and that the detention of the passport of the detenue in court custody would not be sufficient in the nature of the offences committed by her to deter her from committing similar offences of smuggling in the future, as well, the court said. The court said that the contention that she has not been informed of her right to submit the representations against detention is also incorrect since the order of detention contains such information. Further, the contention that the detenue has a right to be represented by a lawyer is also absolutely incorrect; there is no such right provided under Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA, the court noted. The court also said that the representations submitted by the detenue have been placed before the Advisory Board and have been considered and rejected by the central government. The contention was raised that there is a delay in serving the grounds of detention, which cannot be accepted, as the grounds of the detention order dated April 22 have admittedly been served on April 27. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that the challenge raised against the order of detention cannot be sustained, the court observed.
16 C
