Kochi honey trap case takes a twist as police file sexual harassment case against petitioner after accused woman’s complaint

The alleged honey trap case in Kerala, in which a couple was booked by the Kochi City police, seems to have turned on its head after the police registered a case against the petitioner in the first case based on a complaint of sexual harassment by the accused woman.

The Infopark police registered the case against Venu Gopalakrishan, 50, an IT company owner, and three of his employees – Jacob, Ebi and Bimalraj – on Tuesday (August 05, 2025). The case was registered after the police recorded the statement of the woman, a former employee of Mr. Gopalakrishnan, that lasted till Monday midnight.

The accused have been booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 351 (2) (criminal intimidation), 79 (insult to a women’s modesty), 74 (assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) 75 (sexual harassment) and 3(5) (criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all) and the Information Technology Act Section 66D (whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation).

As per the first information report, the alleged incidents of harassment leading to the registration of the case took place between February 14, 2024, and July 24, 2025.

The case by the Infopark police comes after the Ernakulam Central police on July 30 registered a case against the couple on charges of a bid to extort ₹30 crore from Mr. Gopalakrishnan.

Since then, the woman accused Mr. Gopalakrishnan of sexually harassing her at the workplace and while on tour. She has also approached the court demanding that her mobile phone seized by the police following the case against her be subjected to forensic examination for evidence substantiating her charges. She alleged that the case against her was fabricated by the accused when she had threatened to lodge a complaint against him with the company’s internal complaints committee.

While granting her and husband bail on July 30, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court observed that the arrest should have been preceded by inquiry into the digital contents involved and that the arrest was done in a hurried manner. The arrest appears to be done without collecting sufficient materials justifying it, said the court.