'Complaint By Embassy Can't Barter Fundamental Rights': Karnataka High Court On Homestay Owner's Illegal Arrest In US National Rape Case

Declaring the arrest of a homestay owner as illegal over alleged rape of a US national at his property, the Karnataka High Court said that merely because the US Embassy communicated a complaint to investigating agencies does not mean that the fundamental rights of Indian citizens should be bartered away. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248]“…Merely because the Embassy of the United States of America or any other country would communicate a complaint to the investigating agencies of this Nation, it would not mean that the fundamental rights of the citizens of the Nation should be bartered away….”, Justice M Nagaprassana laid down in unequivocal terms.The court passed the order while partly allowing the plea by operator of Devi Villa Homestay in Kodagu, who was arrested in April in connection with the rape case and for allegedly shielding of offenders. The Court also awarded him compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs, and directed the State to pay the amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.“…The Courts have held that citizens who are subjected to unlawful arrest, illegal detention, or custodial excess are entitled to compensation as an immediate constitutional remedy, while preserving their liberty to seek further damages before a competent civil Court, under private law. The Apex Court has described such compensatory jurisprudence as a redeeming feature - an acknowledgment that mere declaration of illegality is often insufficient to repair the injury inflicted upon fundamental rights…”, the court reasoned.The Court, after hearing both sides, highlighted that the petitioner was admittedly nowhere present at the scene of the alleged occurrence and is not attributed with any overt act constituting the offence of rape. Before the High Court, the petitioner had also claimed that the complainant's [US woman'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 one of the other accused Vrijesh, the housekeeper of the villa, was present in the property at the relevant time.The petitioner claimed 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.Except Section 3(5) BNS, every other section invoked against the owner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the homestay owner contended. Asserting the same, the petitioner emphasised that the arrest could not have been affected 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.About the applicability of Section 3(5) BNS in the current case, the court noted as below:“…Section 3(5) of BN… does not create a substantive offence by itself; it is merely a rule of attribution of liability. It extends culpability to those who may not have physically committed the act, but who are shown to have shared the dual elements of mens rea and actus reus with the principal offender. Such a provision, standing alone, could never furnish legal foundation for the arrest of the petitioner, unless the foundational offences themselves were cognizable and carried punishment beyond the threshold warranting such coercive action…”, the court opined.About the illegality of the arrest, the court said:“…The arrest of the petitioner stands as a glaring affront to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By such unlawful deprivation of liberty, the petitioner was not merely detained; he was subjected to indignity, humiliation, and the trauma that inevitably accompanies the coercive arm of the State being unleashed without lawful justification. The conduct of the police, in the case at hand, is in brazen violation of the safeguards and guidelines painstakingly chiselled by the Apex Court, commencing from D.K. BASU and continuing through SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL”.The court also underscored the sanctity of personal liberty and the repercussions of its breach in the order: “…. The existence of power to arrest is one thing; the justification for its exercise is entirely another... Before curtailing the liberty of a citizen, the investigating agency must arrive at a reasonable satisfaction, founded upon objective material and preceded by due investigation, as to the genuineness and bona fides of the complaint or information received. Every arrest carries consequences far beyond physical restraint - it strips a person of liberty, subjects him to humiliation, curtails his freedom, and often leaves behind an indelible scar upon reputation and dignity…”.Stating that the compensation of 5 lakhs should be treated as 'a constitutional acknowledgment of the wrong suffered' by the homestay owner, the court noted further: “…Compensation, in such cases, is not awarded as largesse, nor as an act of sympathy; it is...

'Complaint By Embassy Can't Barter Fundamental Rights': Karnataka High Court On Homestay Owner's Illegal Arrest In US National Rape Case

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

'Complaint By Embassy Can't Barter Fundamental Rights': Karnataka High Court On Homestay Owner's Illegal Arrest In US National Rape Case

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers