The Kerala High Court, sitting at Ernakulam, on Thursday (September 11, 2025), delivered a split ruling on a sensational bail plea involving allegations of sexual harassment, extortion, and corporate intimidation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas denied anticipatory bail to a prominent businessman accused of repeated sexual assault against his former executive assistant, while allowing pre-arrest bail to three of his associates who faced lesser charges.
Background
The case stems from Crime No. 235/2025 registered at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The complainant, a 42-year-old woman who worked as an Executive Assistant, accused her former employer, Venu Gopalakrishnan, of subjecting her to sustained sexual harassment for over a year. She alleged that he forced her into humiliating acts, including coerced sexual advances inside office premises and sending obscene videos. When she attempted to resign, she claimed her requests were rejected under threats of ruining her career.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders Nationwide Monitoring of Disability Homes, Launches "Project Ability Empowerment"
The businessman and his staff, however, told the court a different story. They alleged the complainant and her husband had demanded ₹30 crores in a "honey trap" scheme, and even accepted cheques before being arrested by police. They insisted the sexual harassment claims were fabricated to counter the extortion case.
Court's Observations
Justice Thomas went through the case diary, complaints, and the FIRs in detail. He noted disturbing lapses in police procedure:
- The survivor's statement under Section 183 of BNSS was delayed despite her written complaint.
- The FIR omitted sections relating to attempted rape.
- Her seized mobile phones and laptop, which allegedly contained key evidence, were held by police without proper records for several days.
"The manner in which investigation is proceeding into an allegation of sexual harassment does not inspire the confidence of this Court" the judge remarked, hinting at possible influence by the accused.
The bench also rejected the defence's attempt to downplay allegations as fabricated digital evidence.
"In matters involving grave allegations of sexual harassment, when the Court is not convinced of the allegations being wholly false, it is always appropriate that the investigating officer be given a free hand," Justice Thomas observed.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, he reminded that custodial interrogation has more value in unearthing truth compared to questioning under the protection of pre-arrest bail.
The Decision
The Court ruled that anticipatory bail for the businessman (first accused) could not be granted given the gravity of allegations, risk of tampering with evidence, and his influential position.
However, for accused Nos. 2 to 4 - employees and a director of the company - the Court found no direct sexual abuse allegations. They were granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and refraining from contacting the survivor.
Justice Thomas concluded firmly:
"This is not a fit case to protect the first petitioner with an order of pre-arrest bail. Hence his application is dismissed. As for petitioners 2 to 4, anticipatory bail is allowed subject to conditions."
And with that, the crowded courtroom exhaled - the businessman left without the shield of bail, while his colleagues walked away with conditional relief.
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: B.A. No. 9589 of 2025 (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)
