Karnataka High Court Flags Security Concern Over 'Mushrooming Homestays', Reserves Order On Plea Against FIR Over US Woman's Alleged Rape

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 10) orally flagged the security risk concerning the "mushrooming of homestays" across the state, remarking that no one no longer knows where these accommodations are and what was happening there. 

The court was hearing a plea moved by a homestay owner challenging an FIR lodged over the allegation that a US national was raped at his homestay. The owner, who was arrested on April 19, seeks quashing of the FIR for rape and has sought Rs 15 Lakh as compensation for breaching his Fundamental Rights.

The owner has been booked for offences under Sections 64(1) (rape), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 238 and 239 BNS (concealing design to commit offence and giving false information).

After hearing the matter today the court reserved its verdict in the homestay owner's plea. 

When the matter was taken up, Advocate Angad Kamath appearing for the owner submitted before Justice M Nagaprasanna:

"Like the court orally remarked last time, rape of a foreigner is a serious offence…However serious an offence is…but can State violate rights of accused with impunity?"

To this, the court orally said:

“…That will be answered on merits… but tell me… these homestays need to be regulated… they have mushroomed to such an extent that we don't know where they are and what happens there. …everybody's security is at risk". 

Kamath further pressed upon the alleged contradictions in the statement of the survivor and the prosecution's version fervently.

“…. The incident is alleged to have occurred between 1 PM and 3 PM on April 12. 17 minutes after the alleged incident, the complainant sent a message thanking the owner for giving her wifi access, stating "you can upcharge me… since you are helping me out…. The complainant herself states in the complaint that she did not disclose the alleged rape to the US Consulate or to her friends… If Wi-Fi had been cut off for 3 days and she was locked in the room… there is an email communication from her parents in the US which she has replied in 45 minutes on April 13…”, he said about the owner's absence in the premises, his lack of awareness of the alleged incident and the falsity of 'locked-in' allegations.

Arguing further, Kamath touched upon the CCTV footage already produced before the court:

"CCTV footage shows the complainant going out with the accused family on April 14 and 15, and going on a solo excursion on April 14 and 15…. The FIR was registered on April 18 at Mysore. The petitioner was picked up on April 18 evening and shown as arrested on April 19 at 5 AM…. In BNS, all offences against me are non-cognisable… I am arrested for non-cognisable offences… The question is, could I have been arrested for non-cognisable offences?"

Kamath submitted that there are pre- and post-arrest safeguards, underscoring that there is a jurisdictional bar to arresting somebody for non-cognisable offences.

"Section 64(1) BNS cannot attach to the Petitioner directly. The only route to him is Section 3(5) BNS – common intention. At 11.30 PM at night, I am produced before the Magistrate and Section 3(5) [common intention to rape] is added. I was not even at the site…Booking.com has written to me saying they are going to permanently cancel my registration due to sexual misconduct allegations… We have license… we have done due diligence… If this is the case, no one can do business in India”, he argued. 

Kamath tried to point out discrepancies in the prosecution version and said that if investigation may be carried out by a specialised agency like CID.  He further argued that the petitioner was remanded without requisition, which he described as a complete violation of procedure. 

Meanwhile Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for the State defended the arrest and said:

"We are not saying there is a common intention to rape… we are saying common intention to destroy evidence, threaten the witnesses. On the grounds of arrest, we have specifically said what the allegation is there about you…she did communicate the instance of rape that happened on the day of arrival to her parents later. She collects even the tissues the accused used after the commission of offence, she carries all these documents with her, the very fact that she shifted from tent to house, she wanted to stay inside,…I am telling the facts… she did not take a bath…she wanted to preserve the evidence… arrangement was made to shift her to Mysore and then she files a complaint”.

The State also contended that the homestay owner should have reported to the jurisdictional police when a foreign national came to stay, which he did not. 

"We have not said that he committed rape… we say he is the person running the homestay… chances of destroying evidence, threatening witnesses… it's our obligation to protect the US national- we have done it," the SPP submitted further.

Kamath, in response, submitted that common intention to destroy evidence does not change the classification of the offence from non-cognisable to cognisable.

On June 8 the high court had refused to grant an interim stay on proceedings in the FIR. 

Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P 7712/2026