'No Blanket Stay Straight Away': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Halt Probe In FIR Against Homestay Owner Over US National's Alleged Rape

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) refused to grant an interim stay on proceedings in an FIR lodged over alleged sexual assault of a US national at a homestay in Kodagu, directing the State to secure all investigation papers conducted till date and place them before the Court on Wednesday (June 10). 

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna briefly heard Advocate Angad Kamath's (for the home stay owner) submissions to the effect that “the arrest was a brazen example of fundamental rights taken for granted”.

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. 

Appearing for the petitioner, Kamath submitted that the newspaper reports and the complainant's own Section 180 BNSS statement stands contradicted by the facts supported by the 'sterling quality of documents' which will be relied upon.

"…I have not committed rape. All the offences against me are non-cognisable and bailable offences. They added 3(5) IPC [common intention] at the time of remand…. We are supplying the CCTV footage from the homestay for the dates of April 12- April 18”, Kamath told the court.

However, the court, declining to grant the interim relief of staying further investigation right away, orally said:

"…Citizen of another country was raped here. It's a fundamental issue….I can't grant a blanket stay straight away. I want to see the investigation papers… There is some alleged involvement of you in this matter. We will see". 

When the petitioner's counsel indicated further about the compensation of 15 lakhs sought for, the Court asked, "What do you want? Do you want to repair the homestay?"

The Court then directed the Additional SPP to secure the entire investigation papers conducted till date and place them before the Court on Wednesday and listed the matter along with fresh matters.

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).

The plea claims that Section 3(5) BNS (common intention) does not appear in the FIR or in the initial crime documents, and was inserted only in the remand application of April 19 to sustain the rape offence against the petitioner.

It claims that the complainant's 180 BNSS statement does not implicate the owner in the offence; it neither mentions that the owner was present in the premises at the alleged time of occurrence, the petition claims. Only the first accused Vrijesh, the housekeeper of the villa, was present in the property at the relevant time.

“…… Section 64(1) BNS cannot … attach to the Petitioner directly. The only route to him is Section 3(5) BNS -common intention”, the petition states why Section 3 (5) was added later as an afterthought.

It further contends that all the offences alleged against the petitioner requires specific knowledge of the offence as part of 'mens rea', but the complainant's statement itself expressly negates such knowledge on the part of the home stay owner.

The plea submits that the complainant's Section 180 BNSS statement suggests that on April 12 and April 13, she did not make any reference to the crime while talking to her friends.

Except Section 3(5) BNS, every other section invoked against the owner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Asserting the same, the petitioner emphasises that the arrest could not have been effected without a written satisfaction under Section 35(1)(b) BNSS and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, as laid down in Arnesh Kumar judgment.

On the other hand, the prosecution had claimed that the villa owner forced her to stay at the property for a longer duration, preventing her from making any calls and only allowing communication with the outside world through text messages.

The complainant has alleged that she was served a welcome drink upon her arrival on April 12 which was allegedly spiked. It is alleged that on losing consciousness, the employee sexually assaulted her.

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

Case No: CRL.P 7712/2026