Homestays in Karnataka need to be regulated: HC

THe mysore heights margaret court on midweek observed that homestays crossways the state need to be regulated, as it reserved orders on a petition filed by the owner of a homestay in Kodagu district where a 33-year-old US tourist was allegedly raped in April this year.“Homestays need to be regulated. They have mushroomed to such an extent that we don’t know where they are and what happens there. Everybody’s security is at risk,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while hearing the petition filed by homestay owner Palecanda Ponappa, seeking quashing of the FIR against him and compensation of ₹15 lakh for what he alleges was an “illegal arrest”.Ponappa, who is out on bail, told the court through his counsel, advocate Angad Kamath, that he did not dispute that the incident occurred, but was questioning his arrest in the case.“I am not saying for a minute that the incident did not happen. The only thing I am saying is that however serious the offence is, can the State violate the rights of an accused with impunity,” Kamath said.The homestay owner was arrested following a complaint filed by the US citizen, who alleged that a 45-year-old worker at the homestay had raped her on April 12. Police later arrested the worker as well as Ponappa, accusing the latter of shielding the accused and failing to report the crime.The accused, including the homestay owner, have been charged under Sections 64(1) (rape), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 238 (concealing design to commit an offence) and 239 (giving false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).During the hearing, Kamath argued that none of the offences originally invoked against his client were cognisable or non-bailable. He contended that the police nevertheless arrested Ponappa and later added a common intention charge during remand proceedings.Seeking to demonstrate that the survivor had not disclosed the alleged assault to the homestay owners immediately after the incident, Kamath relied on emails, messages and CCTV footage collected during the investigation.According to him, the survivor thanked Ponappa for restoring Wi-Fi access shortly after the incident and, in her complaint, acknowledged that she had not informed the homestay owners about the alleged rape at that stage. Kamath also referred to CCTV footage that allegedly showed the survivor spending time with members of the owner’s family on April 13 and 14 and undertaking a solo excursion on April 15.Kamath also placed before the court email exchanges between the survivor and her parents, as well as a message sent by one of her friends to the homestay owners, to submit that the correspondence discussed the survivor’s mental health history, including depression, anxiety, ADHD and OCD, and concerns over her having stopped prescribed medication. He argued that these communications contradicted portions of the complaint, including allegations that she lacked access to communication facilities.Justice Nagaprasanna, however, questioned the relevance of those submissions.“What has all that got to do with the allegations?” the judge asked.Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha responded that the State has never accused Ponappa of rape. Instead, investigators suspect his involvement in attempts to destroy evidence and influence witnesses, he said.Jagadeesha told the court that the survivor preserved material evidence after the assault and later disclosed the incident. He added that the owner, as the person running the homestay, occupied a position that could potentially affect the investigation.Kamath, however, argued that even if police suspected destruction of evidence, the law did not permit arrest for the offences attributed to his client. He also contended that authorities failed to follow mandatory pre-arrest safeguards.After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna said the court would examine the petitioner’s precise role in the case before delivering its verdict.“The offence is serious. We will see what is your role and pass orders,” the judge said.