Smt Rama Raju v. Joint Secretary

Order dated

23.10.2025 passed in WP(HC) No.87/2025;

• Smt. Jayamma v. Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, reported in ILR 2019 KAR 1543;

• K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476;

• Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502;

• Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53;

• Pramod Singla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374;

• Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 476;

• Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 127;

• Mr. Keneeth Jideofor v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Others, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2127;

• Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 51;

• Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057;

• Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117;

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799;

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254;

• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576;

• Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, reported in 2002 4 Crimes (SC) 86;

• Gimik Piotr v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010 85 AIC 168;

• Dharaneesh Raju Shetty v. Union of India, reported in 2018 Supreme(Del) 720;

• Pooja Batra v. Union of India and Others, reported in

(2009) 5 SCC 296; and

• State of Maharashtra and Others v. Zubair Haji Qasim, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 792.

¶23It is therefore submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that none of the alleged grounds satisfy the statutory ingredients required for preventive detention and that the entire order stands

vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of constitutional safeguards.

¶24In response to the grounds raised by the petitioner, the learned ASGI raises the following contentions:- The material gathered during investigation demonstrates the existence of a well-orchestrated, commercially motivated, transnational smuggling syndicate operated by the detenues over a sustained period. The detaining authority carefully examined the voluminous material, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, documents seized from the residences and business premises, forensic extraction of mobile phones, and statements of various facilitators who enabled the syndicate. On this basis, the authority recorded its subjective satisfaction that the detenues possess both the propensity and the potentiality to continue engaging in prejudicial smuggling activities unless preventively detained.

¶25Section 1(2) of the Customs Act states that the Act extends to the whole of India and even to offences committed outside its territory. In the present case, a significant part of the planning, procurement and documentation was carried out in the foreign jurisdiction of Dubai. Section 2(39) of the Customs Act defines smuggling in relation to goods as any act or omission which renders such goods liable to confiscation under Sections 111 or 113 of the Customs Act. The definition is intentionally wide, covering not only physical carriers but also organizers, financiers, handlers and facilitators who orchestrate the process from behind the scenes, ensuring to capture every component of the illicit chain. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act states that any goods imported or attempted to be imported contrary to prohibition under any law are liable for confiscation. Under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, gold other than ornaments is prohibited as per Item 5 of Annexure I. Gold bars and biscuits are therefore prohibited goods. The deliberate and repeated import of gold bars and biscuits by the detenues falls squarely within this

prohibition. Section 135 of the Customs Act prescribes punishment for evasion of duty and related offences. It forms part of the statutory framework that marks clandestine import activities as serious offences, thereby reinforcing the preventive purpose of COFEPOSA Act. Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act extends to preventive detention not only to persons who directly smuggle goods, but also to those who abet, transport, conceal, keep, deal with, or harbor persons engaged in smuggling. On the ground of non-supply of the pen drive in Sl.No.51 of the relied upon documents, the learned ASGI submitted that contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue on a laptop on 27.04.2025 and the detenue has given an acknowledgement to that effect.

¶26The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents contended that the detention order is legal and justified, having been passed after due consideration of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority. It is contended that the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction based on cogent material showing that the detenue was a

key member of a well-organised smuggling syndicate involved in bringing foreign-origin gold from Dubai into India. It is submitted that the detenue along with co-detenue, Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, were actively and habitually involved in smuggling activities, including making false declarations before Dubai Custom Authorities and physically transporting gold into India on multiple occasions.

¶27It is submitted that the investigation revealed that the detenue had made repeated trips between India and Dubai, often around the same time as his co-detenue, and played a vital role in procuring, carrying, and delivering smuggled gold. The detenue exploited his U.S. citizenship by travelling without visas to several destinations for smuggling operations.

¶28It is further submitted that the material gathered clearly shows that between March 2024 and March 2025, approximately 99 kilograms of foreign-origin gold was smuggled by the syndicate, with the detenue playing a significant role. This demonstrates the detenue9s potential to

continue engaging in smuggling, thereby justifying preventive detention.

¶29It is submitted by the learned ASGI that the contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue on a laptop while in custody. The prison authorities did not permit the possession of the pen drive inside jail hence, after viewing the contents of the pen drive, the detenue gave a written acknowledgement directing the Sponsoring Authority to hand over the said pen drive to his brother Shri. Varun Raju or Shri. Ravi Kumar. Accordingly, Shri. Varun Raju was given the pen drive against a signed acknowledgement dated 28.04.2025. Therefore, the ground relating to non-supply of the pen drive does not stand.

¶30It is further submitted that the ground related to two Kannada pages No.1010 and 1011 of the relied upon documents is untenable because they were attached as only backing sheets to protect the main document from mutilation. The detaining authority did not rely upon these two pages while passing the order of detention. Therefore, the relied upon documents have been furnished in full.

¶31It is further contended that the detenue was informed that he could make representations to the detaining authority, Central Government and the Advisory Board through the jail authorities. The representations were considered within a statutory time.

¶32It is also contended that a legal distinction between punitive custody in a criminal prosecution and preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act must be made. Even if the detenue is in judicial custody or bail has been considered, preventive detention may still be required to prevent future smuggling activities. The sponsoring authority and the detaining authority are said to have followed all constitutional, statutory, and procedural safeguards, and the respondents deny all contentions of non-application of mind, non-supply of relied upon documents, or procedural lapses.

¶33The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents places reliance on the following judgements: • Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India, reported in

(2005) 8 SCC 276; and

• State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 613.

¶34Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the main contention raised by the writ petitioner is that the detenue's involvement in the repeated instances of smuggling are not even spoken of in the detention order and that he had committed no offence whatsoever under the Customs Act. However, we notice from the specific recitals in the detention order and the statement of objections filed by the ASGI that the specific involvement of the detenue in the well planned smuggling operations has been clearly adverted to and the materials relied on in support of such contentions have been made available to the detenue in the instant case. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention that the detenue had no involvement in any of the offences cannot be accepted and a challenge to the detention order on that ground has to essentially fail.

¶35It is to be noticed that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not justiciable before the

Constitutional Courts and the necessity to keep a person under preventive detention is clearly left to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The question therefore would be whether there has been any procedural error in the detaining authority coming to the said subjective satisfaction. Though several arguments have been raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, no such error in the arrival at the subjective satisfaction has been pointed out in the instant writ petition. Further no instance of non-adherence to the time lines as provided in the COFEPOSA Act is pointed out. The fact that the detenue is in imprisonment and that his bail application had been dismissed is specifically noticed in the detention order. Further, the fact that he is an important participant in the smuggling syndicate and that the retention of his passport would not deter him from engaging in further smuggling activities has also been clearly recorded.

¶36The further contention raised by the detenue that his representation preferred before the detaining authority has not been considered by the detaining authority, is also

not tenable in view of the fact that the representation was received by the detaining authority after passing the order of detention. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner attempts to contend that since there is a power of revocation of the order of detention, the said representation should have been considered by the detaining authority. However, we notice that the power of revocation of detention orders is specifically vested with the Central Government and not with the detaining authority under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act.

¶37Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act, reads as follows:-

¶11Revocation of detention orders.4

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified4 (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the Central Government;

(b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, by the Central Government.

(2) The revocation of a detention order shall not bar the making of another detention order under section 3 against the same person."

¶38We also notice that the detaining authority before whom a representation was filed after the order of detention was passed, had forwarded the representation to the Advisory Board and the representation submitted before the Central Government has been duly considered and answered by the Central Government.

¶39In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the non-passing of an order by the detaining authority on his representation cannot vitiate the order of preventive detention.

¶40Having considered the contentions advanced and the decisions relied on by either side, we are of the opinion that no good grounds have been made out to interfere with

the order of preventive detention. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

cp*

( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(19 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MRS.(JUSTICE(ANU(SIVARAMAN( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VIJAYKUMAR(A.(PATIL( WRIT(PETITION((HABEAS(CORPUS)(NO.77(OF(2025( ( BETWEEN:( , SMT.,RAMA,RAJU, W/O,NARASIMHA,RAJU, AGED,ABOUT,63,YEARS, R/AT,No.56/3,, DOLLARS,COLONY,, SANJAY,NAGAR, RMV,EXTENSION,, BENGALURU-560,094, ...PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,HASHMATH,PASHA,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,KARIAPPA,N.A.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( , 1,.,, JOINT,SECRETARY, COFEPOSA,, GOVERNMENT,OF,INDIA,, MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE,, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE,, CENTRAL,ECONOMIC,INTELLIGENCE,BUREAU,, TH6 ,FLOOR,,"B",WING,, JANPATH,BHAVAN,,JANPATH,, NEW,DELHI-110,001,, REPRESENTED,BY,ANUPAM,PRAKASH, , 2,.,, GOVERNMENT,OF,INDIA, BY,CENTRAL,ECONOMIC,INTELLIGENCE,BUREAU,, GOVERNMENT,OF,INDIA,, ,,( ( MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE,, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, TH6 ,FLOOR,,"B",WING, JANPATH,BHAVAN,,JANPATH,, NEW,DELHI-110,001,, REPRESENTED,BY,DIRECTOR,GENERAL, , 3,.,, SENIOR,SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL,PRISON,, PARAPPANA,AGRAHARA,, BENGALURU-560,100, ...RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,KULOOR,ARVIND,KAMATH,,ASGI,WITH, ,,,,,,SRI.,SHANTHI,BHUSHAN,H.,,DSGI,FOR,R1,&,R2;, ,,,,,,SRI.,THEJESH,P.,,HCGP,FOR,R3), , THIS, WP(HC), IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,(a),ISSUE,A,WRIT,IN,THE, NATURE, OF, HABEAS, CORPUS, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT,, ORDER, OR, DIRECTION, DECLARING, THE, DETENTION, OF, SRI., TARUN, KONDURU, RAJU, S/O, SRI., NARASIMHA, RAJU,, BY, ORDER, F.No.PD-12001/02/2025-COFEPOSA,, DATED, 22.04.2025, (ANNEXURE-"A"),AS,ILLEGAL,AND,VOID,ABINITIO,AND,ETC., , THIS, WP(HC), HAVING, BEEN, HEARD, AND, RESERVED, FOR, JUDGMENT, ON, 01.12.2025, AND, COMING, ON, FOR, PRONOUNCEMENT,OF,JUDGMENT,THIS,DAY,,ANU(SIVARAMAN( J.,(PRONOUNCED,THE,FOLLOWING:, , , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MRS.,JUSTICE,ANU,SIVARAMAN, ,and,, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,VIJAYKUMAR,A.,PATIL,, ( ( CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Petition Habeas Corpus is filed by Smt. Rama Raju, petitioner and mother of the detenue - Shri. Tarun Konduru Raju seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to declare the detention order dated 22.04.2025, issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA Act" for short), as illegal. 2. We have heard Shri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri Kariappa N.A. learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri. Kuloor Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. Shanthi Bhushan H, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri. Thejesh P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, was intercepted on 03.03.2025 at the Green Channel at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, while attempting to exit without declaration. A personal search revealed 17 foreign- marked gold bars weighing approximately 14,200.53 grams concealed on her person. Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was arrested on 04.03.2025. Her voluntary statements were also recorded. Further, voluntary statements recorded reveals that she was a Director in five firms including 'Vira Diamonds Trading LLC, Dubai'. Her phone, laptop and other electronic devices were also voluntarily surrendered and subjected to examination. Customs declaration dated 06.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 in the name of M/s.Vira Diamonds Trading LLC for 2.8 kilograms of gold to the United States of America and 1.5 kilograms of gold to Thailand were retrieved from the laptop of Smt. Harshavardinin Ranya. 4. During the analysis of the data, the involvement of the detenue herein was noticed and the voluntary statements of Smt. Harshavardini Ranya were also obtained pointing to such involvement. Thereafter, the detenue's voluntary statement was recorded on 08/09.03.2025 under Section 108