A homeowner in Kodagu, Karnataka state, accused of preventing an American tourist from seeking help after she reported being raped at the accommodation, has filed a petition in the state high court questioning the legality of his arrest and the charges against him, claiming that the prosecution’s story differs from that suggested by the victim’s letters, call logs and travel history.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the criminal proceedings against accused Balakanda Vishal Ponnappa, citing the need to examine the investigation records before granting relief.
The case relates to the alleged rape of a 33-year-old American woman at the accused’s residence in Kodagu. Investigators claimed that one of the employees raped her after drugging her. The employee, identified as Vrajesh Kumar, was arrested after filing the complaint and remains in custody.
According to the case record submitted to the court, the alleged rape occurred on April 12. Ponnappa was arrested on April 19 on allegations that he failed to report the matter to the authorities and disabled the Wi-Fi service at home to prevent the victim from doing so. He was released on bail on 2 May.
Quoted WhatsApp conversations
The petition claims to cite WhatsApp chats between the victim and Ponnappa on the day of the alleged assault, two phone calls allegedly made by the complainant later in the day, and a lengthy email allegedly sent to seven recipients the next morning, which allegedly did not indicate any incident of rape or sexual assault.
Ponnappa also challenged the legal basis for his arrest. “Section 3(5) BNS appears, in the case file, only in the remand application dated 19.04.2026,” the petition claims. Section 3(5) deals with common intention.
According to the file, the rape allegation under Section 64(1) BNS was made only against the housekeeper and not against the landlord.
The petition also asserts that investigators failed to secure critical digital evidence, including WiFi logs, router logs, call detail logs and location information that could verify or refute the competing claims made by the complainant and the accused.
“The State has thus admitted, in the record of this case, that the digital data is available, that it is retrievable, that it can only be retrieved by the investigating officer, and that it has not been retrieved,” the petition said.
The file also alleges that when Ponnappa was arrested and produced before the court, several steps of investigation remained incomplete, including interrogation of witnesses, collection of scientific evidence and recording of statements required under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Police confirmed that the investigation is still ongoing. Officials said earlier that forensic examination and collection of digital evidence were underway, and that all aspects of the case were being examined.
When asked to comment on the petition, a senior police officer said a detailed report would be submitted to the court in due course.
