Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail For IT Firm Owner In Sexual Harassment Case, Grants Interim Relief To Co-Accused

The Kerala High Court recently considered anticipatory bail applications arising from a case involving allegations of sexual harassment, intimidation, and threats against a female employee of an IT firm based in Kakkanad, Kochi. The primary accused in the case is Venu Gopalakrishnan, the owner of the company, who sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was filed against him by a former employee. The matter came before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who examined the seriousness of the allegations as well as the sequence of events leading to the filing of the case.

According to the complaint, the female employee worked at Venu Gopalakrishnan’s software firm between February 2024 and July 2025. During this period, she alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment and behavior that outraged her modesty. She further accused her employer of threatening her with consequences if she resisted or attempted to speak out. The complaint also extended to three other individuals associated with the firm—Jacob P. Thampy, Eby Paul, and Bimalraj Haridas—who were alleged to have intimidated her and issued threats that she would be falsely implicated in another case if she pursued her complaint.

The defense presented a different narrative, pointing to an earlier case filed by Venu Gopalakrishnan against the same woman and her husband. In that case, Venu had alleged that the complainant and her spouse had attempted to extort an amount of ₹30 crore by making false claims of an illicit relationship and threatening legal action unless the money was paid. That earlier complaint had resulted in the arrest of the woman and her husband, though both were later granted bail. The defense argued that the present complaint of sexual harassment was a retaliatory step following those developments.

The Court, however, noted that the allegations made by the female employee in the present case were serious in nature and warranted proper investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage, particularly to the prime accused Venu Gopalakrishnan, would not be appropriate given the nature of the charges. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted automatically when grave accusations involving sexual harassment and abuse of power are involved.

With respect to the other three accused in the case—Jacob P. Thampy, Eby Paul, and Bimalraj Haridas—the Court adopted a different approach. Recognizing that the specific allegations against them were comparatively less severe, the High Court granted them interim anticipatory bail. This meant that while the investigation against them could continue, they would not face immediate arrest until their applications for anticipatory bail were heard and decided on merits.

In rejecting the anticipatory bail application of Venu Gopalakrishnan, the Court highlighted that prima facie material supported the woman’s claims and that custodial interrogation of the prime accused could be necessary. The Court also directed the State to file its response, making clear that the investigation must proceed in accordance with law. Thus, while Venu’s plea was dismissed, his co-accused received temporary protection, marking a distinction in the Court’s treatment of the allegations.