Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Businessman In Case Involving Allegations Of Sexual Assault And ₹30 Crore Extortion Dispute
The Court noted the sequence of cross-allegations between the parties, including claims of extortion and subsequent allegations of assault, while making interim protection absolute.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman in a case arising out of allegations of sexual assault and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while taking note of the surrounding circumstances involving counter-allegations of extortion and financial settlement between the parties.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the order of the Kerala High Court, which had declined anticipatory bail to the appellant in connection with FIR No.235 of 2025 registered at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences including assault, sexual harassment, and provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the matter involved a sequence of events where both parties had initiated criminal proceedings against each other, and that the circumstances required consideration of the entire factual matrix while deciding the question of anticipatory bail.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocates P.V. Dinesh and Karuna Nundy appeared for the State and the complainant, respectively.
Background
The appellant, a businessman, had employed the complainant as an Executive Assistant in his company in February 2024. The complainant resigned from her position in May 2025.
Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties following the circulation of allegations regarding an alleged relationship between them. A meeting was held between the appellant, the complainant, and her husband in July 2025 to address the issue.
According to the appellant, during the meeting, a demand of ₹30 crores was made by the complainant and her husband to settle the matter, and a proposal was discussed involving staggered payment of the said amount.
Thereafter, the appellant lodged a complaint alleging extortion and illegal demand, pursuant to which FIR No.1041 of 2025 was registered and the complainant and her husband were arrested and later released on bail.
Subsequently, the complainant lodged FIR No.235 of 2025 against the appellant, alleging offences including sexual harassment, assault, and other serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the sequence of events and noted that the dispute between the parties involved competing versions, including allegations of extortion on one hand and allegations of sexual assault and harassment on the other.
It was observed that there was no dispute regarding the meeting between the parties where a financial settlement was discussed, and that documents on record indicated that a sum of ₹30 crores was contemplated to bring about a resolution of disputes.
The Court further noted that the appellant had lodged a complaint first, resulting in the arrest of the complainant and her husband, and that the subsequent FIR against the appellant was registered thereafter.
“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”, the Bench noted.
In this context, the Court observed that the later FIR appeared to have been lodged after the breakdown of the proposed settlement and after initiation of proceedings by the appellant, forming part of the overall factual matrix to be considered.
The Court also took note of the interim protection earlier granted to the appellant and the fact that he had cooperated with the investigation.
Conclusion
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail subject to conditions including furnishing security, cooperating with the investigation, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Cause Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 373)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Raghenth Basant; Advocates Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Sameer Rohatgi, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Dhanya Sunny, Hima Bhardwaj, Vishnu P., AOR
Respondents: Senior Advocates Karuna Nundy and P.V. Dinesh; Advocates Vipul Kumar, Amanpreet Singh, Shiv Mehrotra, Prajwal Tiwari, Shivangshi Mitra, Vaishnavi Rao, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K., Devika A.L., Anna Oommen
