MP High Court denies anticipatory bail to journalist accused of blackmailing GST officer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a journalist accused of attempting to extort a Goods and Services Tax (GST) officer after his GST registration application was rejected [Pradeep Kumar Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh].

The accused Pradeep Kumar Jatav had allegedly threatened the officer by publishing defamatory content about her on social media.

In his June 30 order, Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta held that the allegations against the accused were serious and therefore, declined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.

"Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the material available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the applicant (accused journalist)," the Court said.

It noted that the accused had attempted to get official work done despite deficiencies in his application and had later sought to intimidate a public servant (GST officer) by posting objectionable material against her on social media.

The Court observed that the case diary also contained WhatsApp chats indicating threats and an attempt to obtain unlawful gain from the GST officer.

The case arose from a first information report (FIR) registered against Pradeep Kumar Jatav on the complaint by an Assistant Commissioner of the GST Department posted in Shivpuri.

Jatav was booked under Sections 308(2) and 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deal with extortion and threatening a person with accusations of serious offences to commit extortion.

As per the prosecution, a GST registration application submitted on behalf of Jatav was rejected in July 2025 because it lacked valid identity proof and other mandatory documents.

The prosecution alleged that despite being informed about the deficiencies in the application, Jatav repeatedly visited the the office of the GST officer. It said he insisted that the registration be granted despite the application not complying with the prescribed procedure.

After the application was rejected, he is said to have claimed that he had suffered losses of around ₹20 lakh and demanded compensation from the officer.

The prosecution further alleged that beginning in December 2025, Jatav sent WhatsApp messages containing false and defamatory material about the officer and threatened to publish it.

It also alleged that over the following months, he uploaded a series of Facebook posts accusing the officer of corruption and publishing photographs of her residence and members of her family.

According to the prosecution, when the officer confronted him about the posts, Jatav demanded ₹1 crore to stop publishing defamatory material and continued making threats through calls and WhatsApp.

The prosecution further alleged that even after his number was blocked, Jatav continued publishing defamatory content. He also threatened to implicate the officer and her family in false criminal cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other serious offences.

Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against him.

Apprehending arrest in the case, Jatav approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Before the High Court, counsel for the Jatav told the Court that he has been falsely implicated and contended that he was merely exposing the complainant's alleged unlawful acts.

He also submitted that the case was based primarily on documentary and electronic evidence already seized by the investigating agency, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

On the other hand, the State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

The counsel for the complainant also opposed the plea and submitted that the accused tried to get his illegal work done through the complainant and, upon being denied the same, tried to malign her dignity. Hence, he was not entitled to bail.

After considering the case at length, the Court found no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Advocate Abhishek Jat appeared for the applicant.

Public prosecutor Dinesh Savita appeared for the State.

Advocate Pramod Kumar Pachori appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]