Sangeeta Jain Vs The Union of India

Sangeeta Jain, Wo Bharath Kumar Jain, Age 47 years, Occ Housewife, 14-73, l/andapala Street Opp. Raghavendra Swamy Temple Nellore City, Nellore District Andhra Pradesh-524001

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Union of lndia, Rep by the Secretary Finance tvlinistry of Finance North Block New Delhi 1^'10 001

¶13

2 The Director General, Directorate of Revenue lntelligence Plot No. 1 1-8, lndustrial Area Vasant Kunj, New Dellhi-l^'10070

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction order or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of lVlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents more particularly 2nd respondent in taking further action the complaint daled 2OlO8l2O25 as arbitrary. illegal, capricious and voilatue of provisions of Customs act as well as rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the complaint dated 2010812025 forth with.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High cor 1 may be pleased to issue or pass an interim direction to direct the 2rd responden: o take action against the Hyderabad DRI and Bengalur DRI on the complaint c l the petitioner dated 2010812025 as per law pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KURUVA NAGANNA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARN|, r, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NDIA REPRESENTING S.C. FOR CENTRAL G( VERNMENT

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

.

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26O17 of 2o25

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is frled, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents 1n taking further action on the complaint dated 20.O8.2O25, under due acknowledgment.

¶25

Heard Mr. Kuruva Naganna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additiona,l Solicitor General of India representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20 .O8 .2025, the petitioner sent a written complaint to the 2nd respondent again st the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Hyderabad and Bangalore Tnnal Units. The complaint alleged the SlNCC illegal detention of her husband, Bharath Kumar Jain, 21.07.2025 at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, without material evidence, and that he was being falsely implicated in a gold smuggling case involving Ms. Harshavardini Ranya (Al), who was caught at Bengaluru Airport on 03.O3.2025 The petitioner claims DRI offrcials from both units colluded, threatened her husbald's life, and forcibly obtained statements

¶27

I{BKJ w.P. No.25017 0f 2025

¶28

2

¶29

I

¶30

under Sections 104 and 108 of the Customs Acr., falsely treating them as voluntary. She asserts that her husb,r rd's custody is illegal, as there is no prima facie evidence anrl the confession relied upon is not voluntary. The petitioner pre z ously filed four writ petitions [W.P. Nos. 22529, 22755, 2277t and 23976 of 2025), which r.r,ere disposed of at the admission st rge. Hence, this writ petition is filed, requesting the Court to take I rmediate action on her complaint to protect her husband's life anc iberty.

¶31

Learned Additional Solicitor Genera-l of India, who is representing the learned Standing Counsel for -l Le respondents, submits that the entire proceedings have been nitiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore lonal Unit. He further stated that the detenu was Subsequ t ntly remanded pursuant to the order passed by a competent CoL r t in Cr.No.12 of 2025. The detention orders dated 22.07.2025, ts well as the Arrest Memo of the same date, have been placed : --fore the Court. He further stated that the Arrest Memo was sign: I on every page by the son of the detenu. Hence, there is no dispr.r e regarding the fact that the petitior-rer's husband has been rem,r rded to judicial custody by the competent Court

¶32

\ t

¶33

NBXJ W.P. t{o.26017 of 2025

¶34

3

¶35

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and a perusal of the record, and in the light of the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.p.Nos. 22ZZB, 22TSS, and, 22529 of 2025, which reserved the petitioner,s right to seek appropriate legal recourse under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, or any other law in force, this Court notes that the alleged violation of due process is beyond the scope of the present writ petition. Hence, it would not be proper for this Court to examine the disputed facts regarding the custody of the petitioner's husband, and the writ petition is not entertained at this stage.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving the right of the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse available under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, or under any other law governing the field. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶38

r

¶39

closed.

¶40