Karnataka HC Quashes Chargesheet Against Kodagu Homestay Owner in US National Rape Case

In a plea filed by Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal, the owner of Devi Villa Homestay in Kodagu seeking quashing of the chargesheet against him in connection with the alleged rape of a US national at the homestay, the Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed the plea and quashed the chargesheet against him.

The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna ordered,"Criminal petition is allowed. Charge sheet dated 7-6-2026, laid in Crime No. 34 of 2026, quashed. The petitioner stands obliterated. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other forum".

The alleged incident took place on April 12, 2026, when the US national was staying at the homestay. A homestay employee was accused of sexually assaulting her after allegedly serving her a drink that had been spiked. Ponnappa was not accused of committing the sexual assault himself, but was subsequently implicated in the case on allegations relating to his alleged failure to report the offence and his purported role in screening the alleged offender.

Ponnappa was arrested on April 19 and sent to judicial custody for 14 days. He was granted bail by the sessions court on May 2.

His arrest, however, later became a significant issue before the high court. In a separate petition, the high court declared the arrest illegal and directed the State to pay him ₹5 lakh compensation, while refusing to quash the FIR and allowing the investigation to continue.

Court found that Ponnappa was not present at the scene of the alleged offence and was not attributed any overt act constituting rape. The offences initially invoked against him, including Sections 238 and 239 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [corresponding to Sections 201 and 202 of the IPC], were non-cognizable. Court also noted that Section 3(5) BNS, dealing with common intention, was added at the stage of remand and could not by itself be used as a basis to justify the arrest. Court held that the arrest violated his constitutional right to personal liberty and awarded compensation.

Before the high court, Ponnappa's counsel, Advocate Angad Kamath, challenged, among other things, the invocation of Section 239 of the BNS, which deals with intentional omission to give information about an offence by a person legally bound to inform.

His argument was that Section 239 requires the prosecution to establish that the accused had knowledge of the offence, intentionally failed to report it and was under a legal obligation to provide such information. He specifically questioned whether such a statutory obligation existed in the case, pointing out that Section 33 BNSS (corresponding to Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which sets out circumstances requiring a person to give information about offences, does not cover sexual offences.

A second challenge concerns the Foreigners Act, 1946. The chargesheet invokes Section 7 read with Section 14 of the repealed enactment. Ponnappa has argued that the Foreigners Act was repealed and replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, raising the question whether prosecution under the old law can continue. He has also contended that the corresponding offence under the new law is compoundable.

The allegation that Ponnappa had attempted to screen the alleged offender also came under scrutiny during the August 13 hearing. The high court orally observed that there could be no question of screening an offender if the homestay owner had not been informed about the alleged rape. Court noted that the victim herself had stated that she did not inform Ponnappa about the incident, which came to light after she communicated with her boyfriend in the US and subsequently the US Embassy became involved.

Court had earlier stayed proceedings against Ponnappa and directed that the US-based complainant be informed about the plea. After hearing the parties, including the complainant's counsel, court reserved its judgment.

Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal vs The State of Karnataka

Order Date: August 24, 2026

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna