Anticipatory Bail Denied To Journalist Accused Of Blackmailing GST Officer By MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a journalist accused of blackmailing and harassing a GST officer through a sustained campaign of threatening messages and social media posts after his application for GST registration was rejected.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, while dismissing the plea filed by Pradeep Kumar Jatav, observed that the allegations against him were serious and that material collected during the investigation prima facie indicated threats and attempts to secure unlawful gain from the complainant.

The case arose from FIR No. 394/2026 registered at Kotwali Police Station in Shivpuri for offences under Sections 308(2) and 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Sections 384 and 389 of the IPC).

According to the prosecution, complainant Jaya Sharma, who is posted as Assistant Commissioner, GST, Shivpuri, had rejected Jatav’s GST registration application in July 2025 because it lacked the necessary identity proof and other mandatory documents. Despite being informed about the deficiencies and advised to complete the formal requirements, Jatav allegedly continued to insist that the registration be granted.

The prosecution alleged that Jatav repeatedly visited Sharma’s office, introduced himself as a journalist and demanded approval of his application. After the registration was denied, he allegedly developed resentment against the officer and claimed that the rejection had caused him a loss of around ₹20 lakh.

According to the FIR, the dispute escalated in December 2025 when Jatav allegedly began sending WhatsApp messages containing defamatory and derogatory content against Sharma. He allegedly threatened that adverse news reports would be published against her. The prosecution further claimed that several posts were subsequently uploaded on Facebook carrying allegations of corruption, photographs of the officer’s residence, references to her family members and claims regarding alleged financial irregularities.

The complaint stated that posts continued to appear over several weeks and included photographs of Sharma’s residence, her brother Alok Sharma and her sister-in-law Pooja Sharma. The prosecution alleged that the posts were intended to tarnish the officer’s reputation and create pressure on her.

More significantly, the State alleged that Jatav demanded ₹1 crore from the officer and threatened to continue publishing defamatory material if the money was not paid. According to the complaint, he repeatedly contacted her through calls and WhatsApp communications. Even after his number was blocked, he allegedly continued publishing content targeting the officer and her family.

The prosecution also claimed that shortly before the FIR was lodged in May 2026, Jatav confronted Sharma outside her office and threatened to implicate her and her family in false criminal cases, including proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and even old murder cases. The complaint alleged that these threats left the officer and her family terrified.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Abhishek Jat argued that Jatav had been falsely implicated and that the allegations were fabricated. It was submitted that the case was based largely on documentary and electronic evidence that had already been seized, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. The defence further claimed that Jatav was a journalist who had merely attempted to expose alleged wrongdoing by the complainant and had been implicated because of his efforts.

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita, opposed the plea. Advocate Pramod Kumar Pachori, appearing for the complainant, also argued against grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the accused had attempted to secure illegal favours and, upon refusal, sought to malign the dignity of a public servant.

After examining the case diary, the Court found that the allegations could not be brushed aside at the present stage. Justice Gupta noted that the applicant had allegedly attempted to intimidate a public servant by publishing objectionable content on multiple social media platforms.

The Court observed, “The allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature.” It further noted that the case diary contained “some whatsapp chats indicating ingredient of threat and unlawful gain from the complainant.”

Holding that the nature and gravity of the accusations did not justify the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant, the Court said it was “not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief under Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 of CrPC) in favour of the applicant.”

The anticipatory bail application was consequently dismissed.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Jatav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: June 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta