US Tourist Rape Case: Karnataka High Court Stays Proceedings Against Kodagu Homestay Owner Booked Under Repealed Foreigners Act

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 7) granted an interim stay on all proceedings against the owner of a Kodagu homestay, charge sheeted for offences under the now-repealed Foreigners Act 1946, in connection with the alleged rape of US national at his premises. 

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order and directed that the complainant-victim who is now in USA be informed about the matter by electronic mail.

“…In light of the chargesheet now being filed against petitioner for offences under S. 239 BNS and the Foreigner's Act, the counsel submits that the offence under Foreigners act cannot be contained since it is repealed. As far as Section 239 BNS is concerned, the petitioner contends that there is no statutory obligation to report the said offence to the authority…Therefore, there will be an interim order of stay on all proceedings qua this petitioner till the next date of hearing. The pendency of this petition or the interim order granted will not come in the way of trial and investigation and whatever the case would be qua the other accused”, the court ordered.

When the matter was taken up today, Advocate Angad Kamath appearing for the petitioner submitted that the chargesheet filed against the petitioner under Section 239 of the BNS and Section 7 r/w Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was legally untenable.

He argued that the Foreigners Act had been officially repealed and the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 was enacted in its place, which makes the alleged offence compoundable.

He further argued that the petitioner had no statutory obligation under Section 239 (intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform) BNS, to report the alleged rape to the authorities.

“The complainant herself says [in her statement] that she did not inform you[owner]”, the court orally said. To which Kamath said, “ Even assuming that she had informed me, other two ingredients are that I have intentionally omitted to inform in respect of an offence I am legally obligated to. Under Section 239 BNS, no statutory obligation to report the said offence to the authority is there”.

“Like Section 21 of the POCSO Act [failure to report child sexual abuse]”, the court orally said. “Yes…Under Section 33 BNSS… it sets down what offences is the public under a duty to inform…Sexual offences are not part of it…”, Kamath responded.

During the hearing, the State Public Prosecutor and Kamath jointly suggested that an amicus curiae may be appointed to assist the court in the matter. The court said that it would consider the request.

Further hearing will continue on July 13.

Background

The petitioner had previously moved the high court in a separate plea seeking quashing of the rape FIR, and after hearing the matter at length, the court had reserved its verdict on June 10.

The homestay owner was arrested on April 19 and subsequently sent to 14-day judicial custody. He was granted bail by the Sessions Court on May 2.

The owner was initially 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).

In a connected matter, the High Court had earlier directed the State government to formulate a comprehensive policy for regulation of homestays, noting that the existing framework under Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act does not properly address concerns of public safety, health, hygiene, and security. In the same case, the court also set aside the license revocation of the homestay owned by the petitioner.

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

Case No: CRL P: 9676/2026