Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail in counterblast FIR where record showed prior settlement demand and need to protect liberty.

Case Name: Venu Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala & Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 373

Date of Judgment/Order: 16 April 2026

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Held: The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the surrounding circumstances, including prior monetary settlement negotiations and the sequence of rival criminal complaints, indicate that the FIR may have been lodged as a counterblast. The Court found that the material placed before it showed a prior meeting between the parties, a proposed settlement involving payment of INR 30 crores, and thereafter registration of an extortion FIR by the appellant followed by the complainant’s FIR alleging sexual offences. In these circumstances, and since interim protection had already been granted subject to cooperation with investigation, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail with strict conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent misuse of liberty.

Summary: The appellant, a businessman, had employed the complainant as an Executive Assistant in his company. After she resigned, allegations surfaced regarding an alleged relationship between the appellant and the complainant, leading to a meeting on 24 July 2025 at Taj Vivanta, Ernakulam, where according to the appellant, a demand of INR 30 crores was made and settlement documents were prepared. The appellant thereafter lodged FIR No.1041 of 2025 alleging extortion against the complainant and her husband, resulting in their arrest and subsequent bail. The complainant later lodged FIR No.235 of 2025 at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam alleging offences under Sections 351(2), 64, 74, 75 and 79 read with Section 3(5) BNS and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused but refused it to the appellant, citing the seriousness of allegations and the possibility of influencing witnesses. The Supreme Court considered the chronology of events, the alleged financial settlement documents, the earlier extortion FIR, and the fact that interim protection had operated while investigation continued, and concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to stringent safeguards.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court’s order dated 11 September 2025 insofar as it denied anticipatory bail to the appellant, and made absolute the interim protection earlier granted on 26 September 2025. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing cash security of INR 1,00,000 with two like sureties. The appellant was directed to fully cooperate with the investigation, not misuse his liberty, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, with any violation liable to result in cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial or any other proceedings between the parties, which must be decided independently on merits and in accordance with law.