Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 373
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
J U D G M E N T
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
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2026.04.16
17:10:45 IST
Reason:
anticipatory bail in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.235 of
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