US Tourist Rape Case: Karnataka High Court Says No Question Of Screening Offender If Homestay Owner Wasn't Told About Alleged Rape

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (August 13) orally observed that there could be no question of charging the owner of a Kodagu homestay with screening an offender if he had not been informed about the alleged rape of a US national at his premises.

While reserving for orders the homestay owner's plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the victim herself had stated that the petitioner was not informed about the incident.

Questioning the complainant's submission that the owner had intended to screen the offender, the Court remarked, "…Where is the question of screening offender?"

The Court also extended the interim stay on all proceedings against the homestay owner.

The petitioner was initially booked, among other offences, under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender. However, the police subsequently dropped the charge under Section 238 from the final chargesheet.

The complainant's counsel submitted that the owner had intended to screen the offender, pointing to the alleged six-day delay in reporting the incident, which allegedly occurred on April 12.

However, the Court noted that the victim had herself not informed the homestay owner about the alleged incident.

'…Harbouring/ Screening of the offender cannot be charged at all, because it's your folly that you did not even tell the owner of the homestay…”, the court orally remarked.

The judge noted that the incident came to light only when the victim informed her boyfriend in the US about the incident, following which an email emerged from the US Embassy.

The homestay owner, represented by Advocate Angad Kamath, has sought quashing of the chargesheet on two principal grounds. He argued that the charge under Section 7 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was untenable since the Act has been repealed and replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. He further contended that the corresponding alleged offence under the new enactment is compoundable.

Kamath also argued that the ingredients of Section 239 BNS, relating to intentional omission to give information of an offence, require knowledge of the offence, an intentional omission to report it and a legal obligation to furnish such information.

He submitted that sexual offences do not fall within the category of offences for which citizens are mandatorily required to provide information under Section 33 BNS.

"…Assuming that I had knowledge, under which law am I obligated to report?” Kamath submitted.

For context, the High Court had on July 7 granted an interim stay on all proceedings against the owner. The high court while passing the interim order on July 7, directed that the complainant-victim who is now in USA be informed about the matter by electronic mail.

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 declared the petitioner's arrest as illegal while permitting the investigation to continue and not quashing the FIR in its entirety.

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.

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 9779/2026