HC Upholds COFEPOSA Detention in Rs. 12.56 Crore Gold Smuggling Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), holding that no procedural or constitutional infirmity existed in the detention order passed by the Central Government. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil upheld the detention order dated 22 April 2025, concluding that the detaining authority had arrived at a valid subjective satisfaction based on sufficient and relevant material indicating the detenue’s active role in an organised international gold smuggling syndicate The petition was filed by Rama Raju, mother of the detenue, seeking quashing of the detention order and immediate release of her son. The detention followed a major seizure at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, on 3 March 2025, when Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was intercepted while attempting to exit through the green channel without declaration. Customs officials recovered 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing approximately 14.21 kilograms, concealed on her person. Subsequent investigation revealed alleged links between Harshavardhini Ranya and Tarun Konduru Raju, including business dealings in Dubai through a venture named “Vira Diamonds Trading LLC”. According to the detaining authority, Tarun Konduru Raju was not merely an associate but a key facilitator and abettorin repeated gold smuggling operations between Dubai and India. Authorities alleged that he misused his U.S. citizenshipto travel freely and assist in procurement, documentation, and delivery of smuggled gold. The detention order alleged that the syndicate had smuggled nearly 99 kilograms of foreign-origin gold between March 2024 and March 2025, with the specific seizure on 3 March 2025 alone valued at ₹12.56 crore, involving customs duty evasion of approximately ₹4.83 crore The petitioner raised multiple challenges to the detention order, including alleged absence of material proving abetment under the Customs Act; reliance on statements of a co-accused without independent corroboration; non-supply of crucial documents, including Dubai Customs declarations; supply of audio-visual evidence through a corrupted pen drive; failure to provide translated copies of Kannada documents; delay and improper consideration of the detenue’s representation; absence of a “live and proximate link” between past conduct and future threat. The petitioner also argued that since the detenue was already in judicial custody and later granted statutory bail, preventive detention was unwarranted. Opposing the petition, the Union Government argued that the case involved a well-organised transnational smuggling network, and that preventive detention was necessary to prevent future prejudicial activities affecting economic security. The Government maintained that all relied-upon documents were supplied, the contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue in jail, and statutory timelines under COFEPOSA were strictly followed. It was also contended that preventive detention is distinct from punitive custody and can be validly invoked even when criminal proceedings are pending. The High Court held that the detention order clearly recorded the detenue’s role in organised smuggling activities. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on relevant and proximate material. Allegations of non-supply of documents and denial of representation were unsubstantiated. The representation submitted by the detenue was duly forwarded to and considered by the Advisory Board and the Central Government. The power to revoke detention lies with the Central Government under Section 11 of COFEPOSA, not the detaining authority The Bench reiterated that courts cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, unless procedural safeguards are violated, which was not the case here Concluding that no constitutional or statutory violation was established, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the continued detention of Tarun Konduru Raju under COFEPOSA. “The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed,” the Bench ruled. Case Details Case Title: Smt. Rama Raju Versus Joint Secretary COFEPOSA Case No.: Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No.77 Of 2025 Date: 19/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Kuloor Arvind Kamath, ASGI Click Here To Read Order Read More: National Moot Tribunal Competition Announced at GYANOTSAV 2026

HC Upholds COFEPOSA Detention in Rs. 12.56 Crore Gold Smuggling Case

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 30 May, 2026

Decree on Admission Can’t Be Passed Unless Admission Is Unconditional: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Removal of Tirupati Mutt Mahant

Rs. 11 Lakh Compensation for Illegal Detention After Parole Order: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 30 May, 2026

Decree on Admission Can’t Be Passed Unless Admission Is Unconditional: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Removal of Tirupati Mutt Mahant

About us

Company

Categories