The Supreme Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Kerala-based businessman Venu Gopalakrishnan in connection with a rape and sexual harassment case filed by one of his former employees [Venu Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala & Anr.].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the rape case appeared to be a “counter blast” to an extortion complaint Gopalakrishnan had earlier filed against the employee and her husband.
The extortion complaint was filed by Gopalakrishnan after the employee and her husband allegedly demanded ₹30 crore from him after rumours surfaced about an alleged illicit relationship between him and the employee.
The Court noted that had Gopalakrishnan accepted the settlement proposed by the employee and her husband, the rape case would not have been filed.
According to the case record, the woman had worked as an Executive Assistant in Gopalakrishnan’s company before resigning in May 2025. Following the circulation of rumours about their relationship, meetings were held between Gopalakrishnan and the couple to address the allegations.
Gopalakrishnan alleged that during one such meeting, there was a demand for ₹30 crore to settle the dispute. He subsequently filed an extortion complaint against the former employee and her husband, leading to their arrest and later release on bail.
Soon after, the former employee lodged a separate complaint accusing Gopalakrishnan of rape and sexual harassment, leading to registration of a fresh FIR.
The Kerala High Court had refused anticipatory bail to Gopalakrishnan, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of influencing witnesses.
He then approached the Supreme Court.
The top court found that the sequence of events indicated that the rape complaint was filed after Gopalakrishnan initiated criminal proceedings against the couple.
“In other words, had the financial settlement between the parties been taken to its logical conclusion, no criminal proceedings would have been initiated… It appears that as a counter blast, FIR was lodged (against Gopalakrishnan),” the Court observed.
The Court made its earlier interim protection from arrest permanent and directed that in the event of arrest, Gopalakrishnan be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of ₹1 lakh with two sureties.
It also directed him to cooperate with the investigation and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, while clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the case during trial.
Gopalakrishnan was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Raghenth Basant, along with advocates Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Sameer Rohatgi, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Dhanya Sunny, Hima Bhardwaj and Vishnu P.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Karuna Nundy and PV Dinesh along with advocates Vipul Kumar, Amanpreet Singh, Shiv Mehrotra, Prajwal Tiwari, Shivangshi Mitra, Vaishnavi Rao, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AL and Anna Oommen.
[Read Judgement]