A dispute that allegedly pivoted on a failed ₹30-crore settlement became central to the Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to a Kerala-based IT entrepreneur accused of rape and sexual harassment. The Court observed that the criminal complaint appeared to have surfaced only after negotiations for a financial resolution broke down.
Allowing the appeal, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a Kerala High Court order that had denied pre-arrest protection to Venu Gopalakrishnan. The case stems from an FIR registered in Ernakulam invoking provisions related to rape, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Information Technology Act.
The Court took note of a meeting held on July 24, 2025, between the entrepreneur, the complainant, and her husband. During that interaction, a proposal reportedly emerged for payment of ₹30 crore in instalments to settle the dispute. According to the Bench, materials placed on record indicated that the complainant and her husband were open to accepting the amount to conclude the matter. The judges remarked that if the settlement had materialised, criminal proceedings might not have followed.
Events that unfolded days later also weighed with the Court. The entrepreneur, claiming an attempt at extortion, filed a complaint on July 28, 2025, leading to the arrest of the complainant and her husband, who were subsequently released on bail. The FIR alleging rape and related offences was lodged thereafter. The Bench noted that this sequence suggested the later complaint could have been a “counter blast” to the earlier proceedings initiated by the appellant.
The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, the entrepreneur be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of ₹1 lakh with two sureties. He must cooperate with the investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Any breach of these conditions, the Court clarified, could lead to cancellation of the protection.
The Bench also recalled that interim protection from coercive action had been granted earlier while the investigation continued. Considering the overall circumstances, the Court made that relief absolute. It emphasised, however, that its observations were confined to the question of anticipatory bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.
