The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday observed that homestays across the state need to be regulated, as it reserved orders on a petition filed by the owner of a house in Kodagu district where a 33-year-old American tourist was allegedly raped in April this year.
“Homestays need to be regulated. They have spread to such an extent that we do not know where they are and what is happening there. They are homestays,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while hearing the petition filed by the homeowner, Balikanda Ponnappa, seeking quashing of the FIR against him and compensation for him. $15 lakh for what is allegedly an “illegal arrest”.
Ponnappa, who is out on bail, told the court through his lawyer Advocate Angad Kamath that he did not question the incident taking place, but was questioning his arrest in the case.
“I am not saying for a single minute that the incident did not happen. The only thing I am saying is that no matter how serious the crime is, can the state violate the rights of the accused with impunity,” Kamath said.
The homeowner was arrested following a complaint filed by the American citizen, who alleged that a 45-year-old worker at the house raped her on April 12. The police later arrested the worker as well as Ponnappa, accusing the latter of protecting the accused and not reporting the crime.
The accused, including the homeowner, have been charged under Sections 64(1) (rape), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 238 (concealment of planning to commit crime), and 239 (giving false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
During the hearing, Kamath said that none of the crimes originally invoked against his client were cognizable or non-bailable. He claimed that the police nevertheless arrested Ponnappa and later added the common intention charge during remand proceedings.
Seeking to prove that the survivor did not disclose the alleged assault to the accommodation owners immediately after the incident, Kamath relied on emails, letters and CCTV footage collected during the investigation.
According to him, the survivor thanked Ponnappa for regaining Wi-Fi access soon after the incident, and admitted in her complaint that she had not informed the homestay owners about the alleged rape at that stage. Kamath also pointed out CCTV footage that allegedly showed the survivor spending time with the owner’s family members on April 13 and 14 and taking a solo trip on April 15.
Kamath also presented to the court emails exchanged between the survivor and her parents, as well as a letter sent by one of her friends to the homeowners, indicating that the correspondence discussed the survivor’s mental health history, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, and OCD, and concerns about her cessation of prescription medications. He said those communications contradicted parts of the complaint, including allegations that she did not have access to communications facilities.
But Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the relevance of those requests.
“What does all of this have to do with the allegations?” The judge asked.
The state’s Additional Public Prosecutor BN Jagadesha responded that the state had never accused Ponnappa of rape. He added that investigators suspect him of involvement in attempts to destroy evidence and influence witnesses.
Jagadeesha told the court that the survivor kept physical evidence after the assault and later disclosed the incident. He added that the landlord, as the person managing the property, held a position that could influence the investigation.
However, Kamath said that even if police suspected destruction of evidence, the law did not allow arrest for the crimes attributed to his client. He also confirmed that the authorities failed to follow mandatory pre-arrest safeguards.
After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna said the court would examine the precise role of the petitioner in the case before issuing its ruling.
The judge said: “The crime is serious. We will see what your role is and issue orders.”
