The Supreme Court of India has granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of sexual offences, observing that the criminal proceedings appeared to be a “counterblast” to a prior complaint and arose in the backdrop of a failed ₹30 crore settlement between the parties.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has set aside the order of the Kerala High Court which had earlier denied anticipatory bail to the appellant while granting relief to co-accused.
The case originated from an FIR registered in August 2025 alleging offences under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, including allegations of sexual harassment and rape. The complainant, a former employee of the appellant’s company, alleged prolonged abuse and exploitation.
However, the factual matrix revealed a complex sequence of events. The appellant contended that following rumours of an alleged relationship, the complainant and her husband demanded ₹30 crore to settle the matter. A meeting was held where a staggered payment arrangement was allegedly discussed, and partial transfer of funds was made. Subsequently, the appellant lodged a complaint alleging extortion against the complainant and her husband, which led to their arrest and later release on bail.
It was only thereafter that the complainant filed the FIR accusing the appellant of serious sexual offences. The appellant argued before the Court that the FIR was an afterthought and intended to pressure him into agreeing to the financial settlement.
The High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the appellant citing the seriousness of allegations and the possibility of witness intimidation, particularly given his position and influence. However, the Supreme Court took a different view after examining the sequence of events and material on record.
The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the proposed ₹30 crore settlement and observed that “had the financial settlement been taken to its logical conclusion, no criminal proceedings would have been initiated.” It further observed that the FIR filed by the complainant appeared to be a reaction to the appellant’s earlier complaint, thereby indicating a retaliatory dimension to the proceedings.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that it had earlier granted interim protection to the appellant and found no reason to deny continuation of such protection. Accordingly, it made the interim order absolute and held that the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a cash security of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties. It also imposed conditions requiring full cooperation with the investigation and prohibiting any attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial or ongoing proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan Versus State Of Kerala & Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-811-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15379 of 2025
Date: 16/04/2026
