The Panaji POCSO Fast Track Special Court has rejected the bail application of accused Akhilesh Shetty, a resident of Gokarna, Karnataka, who was arrested Mandrem Police on 26 April, 2026 for allegedly wrongfully restraining and raping the complainant woman at a guest house at Arambol.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place between April 24 and April 26, 2026, in a Guest House in Arambol, Pernem. The accused allegedly struck up a friendship with the victim, took her to his room, and subsequently confined her against her will and raped her. When the victim confronted him, Shetty reportedly assaulted her by slapping her face. The victim managed to escape from the room during the early hours of the morning and sought help from a nearby shop. The statement of the shopkeeper later confirmed this timeline to the police. Following the complaint, police traced and apprehended Shetty near Khanchawada, Arambol.

The prosecution further submitted that the complainant woman was sent for medical examination as a case of sexual assault at GMC Bambolim wherein medical examination was carried out. The Investigating Officer further gave a written communication to the complainant which was duly acknowledged by the complainant wherein she was requested to remain present at Mandrem Police Station on 27.04.2026 in order to enable carrying out remaining part of medical examination as informed by the doctor and also for recording of statement of the victim before the Magistrate. However, that day, the complainant failed to remain present at the Police station., The mobile phone number which was provided by the complainant is also switched off from 27.04.2026 till date and the complainant is not traceable. Despite of request made, the complainant also did not provide any ID card so as to enable verification of her residential address.

The prosecution informed the court that Mandrem police made efforts to trace the complainant woman with the help of Delhi police on her given address. However, on 02.06.2026 a reply was received from Delhi police informing that the address given by the complainant is insufficient to carry out verification and for tracing the whereabouts of the complainant and as such the address could not be verified.

Though, prosecution stated that complainant woman's phone is continuously switched off and she could not be traced due to her reported incomplete residential address, but opposed the bail plea of the acccused on the ground that if the accused is released on bail he will hamper investigation, abscond, intimidate witnesses, offence is serious.

Defending the accused, his Advocate argued that the allegations were unfounded, claiming that the victim had approached Shetty looking for a job and accommodation, and that the physical relationship was entirely consensual.

Rejecting the bail application, the court observed that the shopkeeper’s statement adequately backed the victim's claim of escaping confinement, indicating that the accusations are well-founded. The court in the order also cited the serious nature of the offense, its social ramifications, and the fact that the investigation is still in its preliminary stages.