“The personal liberty of the petitioner, a right guarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been snatched away by the jurisdictional police without any discernible justification, without adherence to statutory safeguards, and without even the semblance of procedural fairness,” the court observed.

The sexual assault case and arrest

The case originated from a complaint forwarded by a 33-year-old US national through the American Embassy. The tourist alleged that while staying at the Kodagu homestay, an employee spiked her drink and sexually assaulted her on April 12.

Acting on the complaint, the police registered an FIR on April 18 under charges of rape, criminal intimidation, and concealing design to commit an offence.

The police subsequently arrested both the helper, who is the first accused, and the homestay owner, Ponnappa.

The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Angad Kamath, argued that Ponnappa’s fundamental rights were brazenly violated. He pointed out that while the helper was accused of a cognisable offence (rape), the charges levelled against the owner were entirely non-cognisable.

Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha countered that the arrest was necessary to unearth the facts of what occurred at the homestay and argued that since the petitioner had already been granted bail, the question of the arrest’s illegality was moot.

Court rejects ‘ritualistic’ arrests

After reviewing the case diary, the bench noted that Ponnappa was admittedly not present at the homestay when the alleged assault occurred and had no direct role in the crime.

The court ruled that charging the homestay owner with rape was “wholly incongruous.” The remaining charges, dealing with the omission of information or the disappearance of evidence, were non-cognisable. Despite this, police picked Ponnappa up on the evening of April 18, detained him overnight, and recorded a formal arrest at 5 am the following morning.

Invoking landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and D K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the court said that arrest is not a “ritualistic exercise” or a starting tool for investigation.

“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.”

Justice Nagaprasanna added a sharp reminder regarding diplomatic pressure: “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.”

While the court held the arrest to be completely illegal and awarded Rs 5 lakh as a “constitutional balm” for the violation of Ponnappa’s dignity, it refused to cancel the criminal investigation against him. The bench ruled that the police must be allowed to investigate the underlying allegations in the case and determine whether any omission of information occurred on the owner’s part.