Venu Gopalakrishnan vs The State Of Kerala

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15379 of 2025)

VENU GOPALAKRISHNAN … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the

accused/appellant assailing the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by

the High Court of Kerala in Bail Application No.9589/2025,

wherein the High Court declined to grant him the relief of Signature Not Verified

anticipatory bail in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.235 of Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2026.04.16 17:10:45 IST Reason: 1 2025 dated 05.08.2025 registered at Infopark Police Station,

Ernakulam alleging offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 64,

74, 75 and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) and 67A of the

Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint was filed by the

respondent (hereinafter referred to as “respondent/complainant”).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the appellant

are that the appellant, a businessman by profession, employed

respondent/complainant in his company as an Executive Assistant

on 14.02.2024. After a brief stint in the company in the said post,

the respondent/complainant resigned by sending an email dated

15.05.2025.

4. Thereafter, owing to alleged rumours circulating on social

media platforms regarding an alleged illicit relationship between

the appellant and the respondent/complainant, the husband of the

respondent/complainant was contacted by the appellant and his

associates and it was mutually agreed by the parties that a meeting

shall be conducted at Taj Vivanta, Ernakulam to address the said

issue.

2

5. On 24.07.2025, upon meeting the respondent/complainant

along with her husband, who had married during her tenure in the

company, it is alleged by the appellant that there was an explicit

demand for a payment of Rs.30 crores to them. A settlement was

arrived at by the parties, wherein the appellant agreed to pay the

said amount in a staggered manner, and that a transfer of Rs.10

crores would be made by the appellant via RTGS and the remaining

Rs.20 crores would be paid by two cheques of Rs.10 crores each.

Pursuant to the said agreement, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty

Thousand Rupees) was also transferred by the appellant to the

joint account of the respondent/complainant and her husband.

6. In the interregnum, the appellant lodged a complaint on

28.07.2025 against the respondent/complainant and her husband

culminating into FIR No.1041/2025 at Central Police Station,

Ernakulam City under Section 308(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS

alleging extortion and illegal demand to the tune of Rs.30 crores.

7. On 29.07.2025, i.e. on the date of next meeting between the

parties, the police authorities arrested the respondent/

3 complainant and her husband pursuant to FIR No.1041/2025.

Subsequently, vide order dated 30.07.2025 in CrMP No.6539 of

2025 and CrMP No.6540 of 2025 the complainant and her

husband were released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Court, Ernakulam on the ground of non-furnishing of notice under

Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) and they continue to remain on

bail.

8. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant proceeded to file a

complaint on 05.08.2025 and pursuant thereto, FIR No.235/2025

was lodged at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam against the

appellant and three others for the offences punishable under

Sections 351(2), 64, 74, 75 and 79 read with Section 3(5) of BNS

and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 alleging

sexual harassment and rape.

9. Apprehending immediate arrest, in relation to the said FIR,

the appellant along other co-accused preferred Bail Application

No.9589/2025 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

seeking anticipatory bail.

4

10. By the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, the High Court

dismissed the Bail Application qua the appellant only while

allowing it with respect to other co-accused. While disallowing the

relief of anticipatory bail, the High Court observed that the offences

alleged against the appellant are of very serious nature and

considering his position in the company and his affluence in the

society, there was a high chance that he might influence the

witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

11. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has preferred

the instant criminal appeal.

12. This Court by order dated 26.09.2025 issued notice and

directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant

herein subject to cooperating with the investigation. In order to

explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties, this

Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 referred the matter to the

Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Thereafter, on 13.03.2026, it

was stated at the bar by the respective senior counsel and counsel

of the parties that there was no possibility of a settlement between

them and hence the said matter may be heard on merits.

5

13. We have heard learned senior counsel, Sri Mukul Rohatgi for

the appellant and learned senior counsel Sri P.V. Dinesh for

respondent/State and learned senior counsel Ms. Karuna Nundy

for the respondent/complainant at length. We have perused the

material on record.

14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is a well reputed businessman who has been

targeted by the respondent/complainant and her husband through

scandalous and malicious messages. It was pointed out that the

respondent/complainant’s husband had made threatening

telephone calls making false accusations about an illicit

relationship between the complainant and the appellant. It was

contended that the complainant and her husband had filed the FIR

against the appellant as an afterthought and counter blast to the

criminal proceeding initiated by the appellant against them, and

that the said FIR was lodged to extort money from him.

15. Elaborating the aforesaid contentions, learned senior counsel

Sri Rohatgi submitted that the respondent/complainant joined the

appellant’s company on 14.02.2024 and she resigned through her

6 e-mail dated 15.05.2025. The contents of the e-mail do not

indicate any kind of harassment that was meted out to her by the

appellant herein. It is only thereafter that the allegations

commenced against the appellant herein and the respondent/

complainant and her husband were keen that there should be a

financial settlement in the matter. In fact, the respondent/

complainant and her husband had also procured the stamp papers

in order to document the terms and conditions under which a sum

of Rs.30 crores had to be paid by the appellant to them by way of

a settlement, copies of which have been appended as Annexures

‘P13–P18”. The stamp papers only contained the signatures of

respondent/complainant. The whole attempt of the respondent/

complainant and her husband was to somehow extort a sum of

Rs.30 crores at least from the appellant so as to bring about a

quietus to their false allegations made against the appellant herein.

This is a case of “honeytrap” of the appellant through blackmail

and threat.

16. Apprehending that the extortion may not end with payment

of Rs.30 crores only, a complaint was made by the appellant

7 against the second respondent and her husband on 28.07.2025.

Pursuant to the complaint made by the appellant, the

respondent/complainant and her husband were arrested and are

on bail. It is only as an afterthought that on 05.08.2025, a

complaint was registered against the appellant herein in order to

enforce the financial settlement by the appellant herein by making

a payment of Rs.30 crores to the respondent/complainant. It was

contended that had there been a financial settlement between the

respondent/complainant and her husband and the appellant

herein, there would have been no criminal complaint made against

the appellant herein. It is only because the settlement did not

fructify that proceedings have been initiated against the appellant.

He contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the

aforesaid aspects of the case. Hence, the impugned order may be

set-aside and the relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the

appellant herein.

17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, in

support of the impugned order, submitted that since the

investigation is at a preliminary stage and, in case, the appellant

8 is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses and intimidate

them as he is a person of considerable influence and resources.

Lastly, it was submitted that the allegations against the appellant

are serious in nature and this warrants custodial interrogation.

That any relief being granted to the appellant would jeopardise the

investigation itself and as a result it would prejudice the victim.

18. Learned senior counsel for the respondent/complainant

submitted that the complainant was subjected to rape and sexual

assault for over a year and as the CEO of the company, the

appellant wielded complete authority over the respondent/

complainant and the employees and the respondent/complainant

was vulnerable to power imbalance and workplace dominance. It

was further submitted that the High Court had observed that the

manner of investigation into the respondent/complainant’s FIR did

not inspire confidence and noted that the respondent/

complainant’s devices were seized without any seizure memo and

therefore the impugned order warrants no interference from this

Court.

9

19. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the manner and

as to how the respondent/complainant was sexually harassed and

it was the appellant herein who was willing to settle with her and

it was in that context that the meeting of the said respondent/

complainant and her husband with the appellant took place.

Instead of giving a quietus to the controversy, the appellant took

advantage of his dominant position and lodged a criminal

complaint against the respondent/complainant and her husband

which constrained them to seek bail on being arrested. That a

person, such as the appellant herein deserves no relief whatsoever

as the appellant herein ought to submit himself for custodial

investigation or otherwise the truth of the matter would be buried.

She therefore submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and

the same may be dismissed.

20. We have given our consideration to the detailed arguments

advanced at the bar. We have perused the material on record.

21. There is no dispute about the fact that pursuant to the

allegations that were made by the respondent/complainant against

the appellant herein, on 24.07.2025, there was a meeting held and

10 according to the contents of the documents which have been

annexed, a sum of Rs.30 crores was to be paid by the appellant to

the respondent/complainant and her husband in tranches of

Rs.10 crores each. In other words, they were willing to accept the

amount to be paid by the appellant so as to bring about a quietus

to their allegations against the appellant herein and to end all

disputes between them. However, it was the appellant who was

apprehensive about them and thought that he was trapped by the

respondent/complaint and her husband and therefore filed a

criminal complaint against them which resulted in their arrest and

were granted bail. It is only thereafter that the respondent/

complainant filed a complaint against the appellant herein. In

other words, had the financial settlement between the parties been

taken to its logical conclusion, no criminal proceedings would have

been initiated as against the appellant herein. On the other hand,

it was the apprehension of the appellant herein which did not

result in his agreeing to any financial settlement with the couple.

Therefore, he filed FIR No.1041 of 2025 against them. It appears

that as a counter blast, FIR No.235 of 2025 was lodged by the

respondent/complainant against the appellant herein.

11

22. By interim order dated 26.09.2025, we had granted interim

protection to the appellant herein subject to his cooperation with

the investigation. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent-State submitted that the investigation is on. In the

circumstances, we think that having regard to the facts and

circumstances of this case, the interim order dated 26.09.2025 is

liable to be made absolute and is therefore made absolute.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our

view, the accused/appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under

Section 482 of BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside

the impugned order passed by the High Court dated 11.09.2025

qua the appellant.

24. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the

Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to his

furnishing a cash security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only) with two like sureties.

25. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete

cooperation in the ensuing investigation.

12

26. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any

way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.

27. Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions may entail in

cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.

28. It is needless to observe that the observations made in the

present appeal shall not come in the way of the trial or other

proceedings pending between the parties which shall be decided on

their own merits and in accordance with law.

29. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

…………………………………..J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………..J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2026.

13