Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IT-Firm Owner Booked For Sexually Harassing Female Employee, Finds Anomalies In Probe

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 11) denied anticipatory bail to Venu Gopalakrishnan, owner of an IT firm in Info Park (Kakkanad) in an alleged case of sexual assault and harassment against his female employee.

It however granted anticipatory bail to other accused persons, who are the employees and director of the firm.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that there were serious allegations made out in the complaint preferred by the de facto complainant and also noted some anomalies in the manner in which the investigation is being carried out. The Court also expressed that it is not convinced that the allegations raised against Venu are wholly false.

The bail plea before the Court was jointly preferred by accused nos. 1 to 4 in the crime registered before the Infopark Police Station allegedly for committing offences punishable under Sections 351(2) [Criminal intimidation], 64 [Punishment for Rape], 79 [Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman], 74 [Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty], 75 [Sexual harassment] r/w section 3(5) [Common intention] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form].

The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused (Venu) sexually exploited the de facto complainant whereas the other accused persons threatened her over phone saying that she would be trapped in a case and they would even murder her. She further submitted that her all her complainants before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) were forced to be withdrawn. It was further alleged that the accused used his influence and power to forge digital evidence and to seize the devices of the complainant in an attempt to delete evidence.

The accused, on the other hand, alleged that the de facto complainant and her husband are raising false allegations to extort 30 crores rupees from him.

The Court first considered the maintainability of the petition in light of the recent observation made by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal. C & Another v. State of Kerala, expressing concern regarding anticipatory bail applications being filed directly before the High Court before approaching the Sessions Court. It observed:

"After expressing its concerns, the Supreme Court has posted that matter for further consideration to 14-10-2025. No binding precedent has been laid down in the above issue till date. However, since this bail application had already been reserved for orders prior to the Supreme Court expressing its concerns, this Court is obliged to pronounce final orders on this bail application. Hence, the said issue has to be addressed, based on the law now in force...in the instant case, considering the nature of allegations, and the matter having been entertained and heard at length and even reserved for orders initially on 22-08-2025, much before the observations in Mohammed Rasal C (supra), special circumstances exist to pass orders on merits, rather than relegate the parties to the Sessions Court. Hence, this bail application is maintainable."

Moving on to the issue of whether the petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail, the Court noted that there was a day's delay in registering the FIR and a week's delay in taking her statement before the Magistrate. However, the statements of four staff of the 1st accused were recorded on the very next day. It further noted that the FIR did not include even Section 62 of the BNS even though allegations of attempt to commit rape was made out in the complaint.

It observed:

"In this context, the contention of the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant that the FIR was registered without including all the relevant provisions of law, under the influence of the first accused has to be borne in mind...it is disturbing to note that the mobile phones and laptop of the defacto complainant seized on 29-07-2025, in connection with Crime No. 1041/2025, was done, curiously, without any seizure mahazar."

Expressing the dubious nature of the emails purportedly sent in the name of the de facto complainant and produced before it, the Court further observed:

"the allegation of the defacto complainant that the first petitioner runs a software establishment and has the expertise to digitally create content and even fabricate e-mails, cannot be ignored...A reading of the content of the said e-mail does create doubts about its source as it attempts to justify every allegation against the first accused as false and fabricated, while at the same time it portrays the husband of the defacto complainant as a mean, abusive and violent person. The stated purpose of sending such an e-mail is baffling. However, these are also aspects that require a thorough probe."

Thus, the Court denied pre-arrest bail to the 1st accused and allowed the bail pleas of the other accused persons on condition.

Case No: Bail Appl. 9589 of 2025

Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559

Counsel for the petitioners: P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, P. Sanjay, Jayaraman S., Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Ann Milka George, Dhanya Sunny, Sherin Rachel Santhosh, A. Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Paul Varghese (Pallath), Kiran Narayanan, Rahul Raj P., Muhammed Bilal V.A., Meera R. Menon

Counsel for the respondents: C. Dheeraj Rajan, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Libin Varghese, Sanoj M.A., Sreeja V.