Anticipatory bail granted where FIR appears to be a retaliatory counter-blast to prior extortion proceedings.

The appellant, a businessman and CEO, employed the respondent/complainant as an Executive Assistant from February 2024 until her resignation in May 2025

Following rumors of an illicit relationship, the parties met in July 2025, where the appellant alleged the respondent and her husband demanded Rs. 30 crores to settle the matter

The appellant subsequently filed FIR No. 1041/2025 alleging extortion, leading to the arrest and subsequent release on bail of the respondent and her husband

On August 5, 2025, the respondent filed a cross-complaint (FIR No. 235/2025) alleging sexual harassment and rape under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the IT Act

The High Court of Kerala, via order dated September 11, 2025, denied the appellant anticipatory bail, citing his influence and the serious nature of the allegations

The appellant challenged this denial before the Supreme Court.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the direction for grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 351(2), 64, 74, 75, and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, regarding sexual offenses and cybercrimes

The Court further adhered to established principles regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation versus the protection of personal liberty when a complaint appears motivated by an ulterior purpose.

The Court examined the chronology of events, noting that the respondent and her husband had initially negotiated a financial settlement of Rs. 30 crores with the appellant

Documents indicated that the respondent had signed stamp papers to formalize this settlement before any allegations of sexual assault were raised

The Court observed that the respondent’s FIR was lodged only after the appellant refused to fulfill the financial demand and instead initiated criminal proceedings for extortion against the respondent

This suggested that the rape allegations were a "counter-blast" to the extortion FIR; the Court reasoned that had the financial settlement fructified, the criminal complaint likely would not have been filed

Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant had been protected by an interim stay on coercive steps since September 2025 and had cooperated with the investigation

Consequently, the Court found that the High Court erred in denying bail based solely on the "seriousness" of the allegations without considering the potentially retaliatory nature of the prosecution.

The Court granted the appellant anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, he be released upon furnishing a cash security of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties

The holding was conditioned upon the appellant extending complete cooperation to the investigation, not influencing witnesses, and not tampering with evidence

The Court clarified that any infraction of these conditions would entail cancellation of the bail