Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case, Notes ₹30-Crore Settlement Talks; Calls FIR a ‘Counter Blast'

The Supreme Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a Kerala-based businessman in a rape and sexual harassment case, observing that documents placed on record indicated that a financial settlement of Rs 30 crore had been discussed between the parties and that the complainant's FIR appeared to have been lodged as a "counter blast" after the businessman initiated extortion proceedings against her and her husband.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a September 2025 order of the Kerala High Court which had refused anticipatory bail to Venu Gopalakrishnan in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 64, 74, 75 and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on August 5, 2025, at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, by a former employee of the appellant's company. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and rape by the businessman during her period of employment.

According to the appellant, the complainant had joined his company as an Executive Assistant in February 2024 and resigned in May 2025. He contended that allegations surfaced only after rumours regarding an alleged illicit relationship began circulating on social media. The appellant claimed that a meeting was subsequently arranged between him, the complainant and her husband to address the controversy.

The alleged Rs 30-crore settlement?

Court referred to documents annexed to the appeal and noted that a proposal existed under which Rs 30 crore was to be paid by the appellant to the complainant and her husband in instalments of Rs 10 crore each.

The appellant's case was that the complainant and her husband sought money in exchange for ending allegations against him and that he ultimately suspected he was being trapped. Acting on that apprehension, he lodged a complaint on July 28, 2025, alleging extortion and an illegal demand of Rs 30 crore.

Pursuant to that complaint, the complainant and her husband were arrested and later released on bail. A week later, on August 5, 2025, the complainant lodged the FIR accusing the appellant of rape and sexual harassment.

Recording its prima facie assessment, the Supreme Court observed that if the financial settlement had been taken to its logical conclusion, criminal proceedings against the appellant may not have been initiated. The Bench further noted that after the appellant's extortion complaint resulted in the complainant and her husband's arrest, the subsequent FIR against him appeared to have been filed as a "counter blast".

The State and the complainant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations were grave, the investigation was at a preliminary stage and custodial interrogation was necessary. It was also argued that the appellant, being a powerful businessman, could influence witnesses and affect the investigation.

However, Court noted that it had already granted interim protection from arrest in September 2025 subject to cooperation with the investigation. Since the investigation had continued during this period, the Bench found it appropriate to make that protection absolute.

Allowing the appeal, Court held that the appellant was entitled to relief under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (previously Section 438 of the CrPC). It directed that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of Rs 1 lakh along with two sureties.

Court also directed the appellant to fully cooperate with the investigation and cautioned him against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. It clarified that any violation of these conditions could result in cancellation of anticipatory bail.

Importantly, the Bench stated that the observations made in the order were confined to the bail proceedings and would not affect the merits of the trial or any other proceedings pending between the parties.

Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala & Another

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: April 16, 2026