The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a Kochi-based software company owner accused of sexually harassing an employee and attempting to frame her and her husband in a false criminal case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas refused relief to Venu Gopalakrishnan, 50, a resident of Kakkanad, observing that the allegations against him were serious and supported by prima facie material. The court said granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would weaken the ongoing investigation.
“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,” the bench held.
The court noted the possibility of Gopalakrishnan using his influence to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
The controversy traces back to July, when the victim and her husband were arrested on allegations of attempting to honey-trap Gopalakrishnan. After securing bail, the victim approached the court, alleging false implication.
Following the court’s intervention, a fresh case was registered against Gopalakrishnan and three of his employees — Jacob Thampy, Eby Paul, and Bimalraj Haridas — under charges of sexual harassment, outraging the modesty of a woman, and criminal intimidation.
While denying Gopalakrishnan’s bail plea, the court granted anticipatory bail to his three employees, noting that they faced only intimidation-related allegations. “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 stated.
Justice Thomas also raised concerns about lapses in the police probe, pointing to 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,” the judge remarked.
The bench found serious irregularities in the seizure of the victim’s electronic devices. The mobile phones and laptop, taken into custody on July 29, were neither seized under a proper mahazar nor promptly produced before the magistrate. The seizure mahazar was prepared only on August 8, leaving room for potential tampering.
Gopalakrishnan had earlier drawn public attention in Kerala after spending nearly ₹46 lakh on securing a unique registration number for his Lamborghini Urus, a detail that resurfaced during the proceedings.
