Kerala HC rejects anticipatory bail plea of Kochi software firm owner in sexual harassment case

Kochi, Sep 11 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a software firm owner accused of sexually harassing an employee and attempting to frame her and her husband in a criminal case.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the petition filed by Venu Gopalakrishnan (50) of Kakkanad, who runs the Kochi-based software company.

Gopalakrishnan had earlier hit headlines after paying Rs 45.99 lakh for the registration number of his Lamborghini Urus car.

The case dates back to July, when the victim and her husband were arrested by police on allegations of attempting to honey-trap Gopalakrishnan.

After securing bail, the victim approached the court, claiming she had been falsely implicated.

The court then directed police to probe the matter, following which a fresh case was registered last month against Gopalakrishnan and three of his employees — Jacob Thampy, Eby Paul, and Bimalraj Haridas — on charges of sexual harassment, outraging the modesty of a woman, and criminal intimidation.

In its order, the court observed that Gopalakrishnan had committed a serious offence and noted the possibility of him using his influence to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

"When the owner of an establishment itself is alleged to have committed serious offences, including rape, and there are materials to suggest the allegations are prima facie justified, protecting him with an order of anticipatory bail will render the investigation ineffective. Hence, the anticipatory bail to the first accused has to be declined," the court said.

However, anticipatory bail was granted to the other accused, as there were no specific allegations of sexual harassment against them.

"The allegations against them relate to threats to implicate the de facto complainant in a honey-trap case. Considering the nature of allegations against those petitioners, this court is of the view that they can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions," the order said.

The court also flagged anomalies in the police investigation, including omissions in the FIR and delays in recording the victim’s statement.

"The manner in which the investigation is being conducted into an allegation of sexual harassment does not inspire the confidence of this court," it observed.

"Nevertheless, it is disturbing to note that the mobile phones and laptop of the de facto complainant, seized on July 29, 2025, in connection with Crime No 1041/2025, was done, curiously, without any seizure mahazar. Further, surprisingly, the seizure of those mobile phones and laptop was neither seen to have been immediately reported nor produced before the Magistrate," the court observed.

The court noted that the seizure mahazar of the mobile phones and laptop was prepared in the case only on August 8, 2025. "Till which period, someone other than the de facto complainant would have been in custody of the phones," the court added. PTI TBA KH