Signing you in

In his petition, the owner, Palecanda Ponnappa alias Vishal, has cited technical evidence that he was not present at the homestay facility when the alleged incident occurred.

Ponnappa, his employee Vrijesh Kumar Ray and a taxi driver, Thejas Kumar, who brought the US citizen to the resort from Bengaluru on April 12, the day of the alleged incident, were named in the chargesheet filed by the Kodagu police on June 7.

While Ray and Kumar are accused of sexual assault, Ponnappa is facing charges of not informing authorities about the alleged incident.

On July 7, the High Court ordered a stay on the trial with respect to Ponnappa, while adding that it “will not come in the way of further trial or proceedings or investigation, whatever the case would be qua the other accused”.

On July 15, the court further ruled that the arrest of Ponnappa was illegal since no cognizable offence was cited against him. “Arrest is not a ritualistic exercise to be undertaken at the whim of the investigating agency; it is a grave intrusion into personal liberty, sanctioned only upon strict compliance with statutory safeguards and constitutional limitations,” the court said, while also ordering payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation to Ponnappa by the state for the wrongful arrest.

In his plea seeking quashing of the chargesheet, Ponnappa has also cited a video statement given by the alleged victim on May 30, after she returned to the US, where she accused the taxi driver Thejas Kumar of assaulting her in the guise of providing a massage.

It was following this statement that the Kodagu police arrested Kumar on June 2, Ponnappa said in his plea, adding that the case began “as a single, self-contained allegation against the resident cook (and) thereafter underwent a striking transformation”.

This was a reference to the initial complaint filed by the alleged victim, after leaving the resort and seeking assistance from the US consulate, where she accused the cook, Ray, of sexually assaulting her after “spiking” a welcome drink she was given when she arrived at the resort.

While ruling Ponnappa’s arrest illegal, the High Court rejected his plea to also quash the FIR in the case, observing that the investigation must continue.

Advocate Angad Kamath, appearing for Ponnappa, said that in their second petition, they are seeking quashing of the chargesheet against him. The matter is scheduled to be heard on July 30.

The second petition points out that while Ponnappa was initially booked for several serious offences, the graver charges had been dropped by police at the stage of filing of the chargesheet. He now faces only two allegations – intentional omission to give information of an offence, and failing to furnish particulars of a foreign guest.

According to Ponnappa’s petition, neither of these offences is made out against him.

One of the principal grounds urged by Ponnappa is that he was not present at the homestay when the alleged offence took place, with the “survivor” also placing his arrival around 6 pm, long after the alleged incident. Since he was absent, he neither had knowledge of the alleged offence nor could he have intentionally omitted to report it, Ponnappa has argued.