Case Law Details
Pradeep Kumar Jatav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the applicant’s first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 394/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 308(2) and 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, the complainant was serving as Assistant Commissioner, GST, Shivpuri. The applicant had applied for GST registration through an acquaintance, but the application was rejected on 18.07.2025 as it lacked a valid identity proof and other required documents. Despite being informed of the deficiencies and advised to comply with the prescribed requirements, the applicant allegedly insisted that the GST registration be granted. The prosecution alleged that he repeatedly visited the complainant’s office, introduced himself as a journalist, and demanded approval of his application.
The prosecution further alleged that after rejection of the GST registration application, the applicant claimed he had suffered a loss of about Rs. 20 lakhs and demanded compensation from the complainant. It was alleged that from December 2025 onwards he sent WhatsApp messages containing false, defamatory and derogatory material, threatened publication of such material, and uploaded multiple Facebook posts containing allegations against the complainant, photographs of her residence, and photographs of her family members along with allegations relating to corruption and property. The prosecution also alleged that he demanded Rs. 1 crore from the complainant, threatening to continue publishing defamatory material if the amount was not paid. According to the prosecution, he repeatedly contacted the complainant through calls and WhatsApp calls, continued publishing defamatory content even after his number was blocked, and later threatened to implicate the complainant and her family in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other criminal cases. On the basis of the complainant’s written complaint, FIR No. 394/2026 was registered.
The applicant contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He submitted that the allegations were false and motivated, that there was no direct, independent and cogent material apart from the allegations in the complaint, and that the case primarily rested on documentary, electronic and digital material that had already been seized, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. He also submitted that he was a journalist attempting to expose unlawful acts of the complainant, was a permanent resident of Shivpuri, posed no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, and that the trial would take considerable time.
The State and the complainant opposed the application. The complainant submitted that the applicant had attempted to get illegal work done through the complainant and, after refusal, tried to malign her dignity.
After hearing the parties and examining the case diary, the High Court observed that the allegations against the applicant were serious. It noted the prosecution’s case that the applicant attempted to get his work done despite deficiencies in the application and allegedly intimidated a public servant by posting unwanted material on various social media platforms. The Court also found WhatsApp chats in the case diary indicating ingredients of threat and unlawful gain from the complainant.
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, and the material available in the case diary, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
This is first application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connected with Crime No.394/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308 (6) of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Jaya Sharma, is posted as Assistant Commissioner, GST, Shivpuri. It is alleged that Pradeep Kumar Jatav, a resident of Badarwas, had submitted an application for GST registration through his acquaintance, Gaurav Bhargava, before the office of the complainant. However, the application was not accompanied by a valid identity proof and other requisite documents. Since the application did not comply with the prescribed requirements and statutory rules, it was rejected on 18.07.2025. According to the prosecution, despite being informed about the deficiencies in the application and being advised to complete the requisite formalities for obtaining registration, the applicant persistently insisted that the GST registration be granted in violation of the prescribed procedure. It is alleged that he repeatedly visited the complainant’s office, introducing himself as a journalist, and demanded that his application be approved. As the registration was not granted, the applicant allegedly developed a grudge against the complainant. It is further alleged that after the rejection of the application, the applicant visited the complainant’s office and stated that the rejection of his GST registration had caused him a loss of approximately Rs. 20 lakhs and that she would have to compensate him for the same. Thereafter, on 07.12.2025, the applicant allegedly sent several WhatsApp messages to the complainant containing false, defamatory and derogatory material against her and threatened that such news would be published. It is further alleged that on 08.12.2025, he again sent threatening messages to the complainant through WhatsApp. The prosecution further alleges that on 11.12.2025, a news item was uploaded from a Facebook account in the name of Pradeep Kumar Jatav containing allegations against the complainant. Thereafter, on 13.12.2025, another post was uploaded on Facebook containing a photograph of the complainant’s residence along with the name of her brother’s academy. Again, on 16.12.2025, another Facebook post was made displaying a photograph of her residence with allegations that the arrival of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had caused commotion and that transactions involving property worth crores situated on Collector Kothi Road were under discussion. It is further alleged that on 22.12.2025, another Facebook post was published using the complainant’s name and photograph without her consent, making allegations of corruption against her. Thereafter, on 27.12.2025, another post was uploaded displaying a photograph of her residence with allegations that her brother had constructed a luxurious house worth crores from the complainant’s alleged black money. On 29.12.2025, another Facebook post was published containing the photograph of her brother, Alok Sharma. Subsequently, on 12.01.2026, a Facebook post was uploaded containing the photograph of her sister-in-law, Pooja Sharma. Thereafter, on 28.01.2026 and again on 18.03.2026, further posts relating to the complainant’s office were allegedly published on Facebook. According to the prosecution, when the complainant confronted the applicant regarding the continuous publication of false and misleading news against her, he allegedly demanded an illegal payment of Rs. 1 crore from her and threatened that if the amount was not paid, he would continue publishing defamatory material and harassing her. It is alleged that the applicant repeatedly demanded the said amount by making calls from mobile number 7440213805 and through WhatsApp calls to the complainant’s mobile number 9425748002, compelling the complainant to block his number. It is further alleged that, despite blocking his number, the applicant continued publishing false and defamatory news against the complainant and persistently threatened and harassed her. It is also alleged that he frequently came to Shivpuri and continued demanding the said amount. Approximately seven days prior to the lodging of the FIR on 21.05.2026, the applicant allegedly met the complainant outside her office at Shivpuri. When the complainant informed him that she had been subjected to continuous harassment and that she intended to initiate legal proceedings against him, the applicant allegedly threatened that he would falsely implicate her and her family in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as in other serious criminal cases, including old murder cases, and would ensure that they were sent to jail. Owing to these threats, the complainant and her family allegedly became terrified. The prosecution, therefore, alleges that since the rejection of his GST registration application on 18.07.2025, the applicant had continuously blackmailed and harassed the complainant with the intention of extorting money from her. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by Jaya Sharma, FIR No. 394/2026 was registered.
4. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations are false and fabricated with an oblique motive. Apart from the allegations levelled in the complaint, there is no direct, independent and cogent material available on record to establish the commission of the alleged offences by the present applicant. The allegations are primarily based upon documentary, electronic and digital material which has been already seized, therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is a journalist and just tried to unveil the unlawful acts of the complainant and consequently, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri, therefore, there is no apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. Final conclusion of trial will take long time. Hence, he prays that applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant/accused always tried to get his illegal work done through the complainant and on denial of the same, he tried to malign her dignity. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
8. The allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature. The prosecution case reveals that the present applicant not only tried to get his some work done, on the basis of lack of documents, but he also tried to intimidate a public servant by maligning her dignity by way of posting unwanted news over different social media platforms. On perusal of the case diary, this Court also finds some WhatsApp chats indicating ingredient of threat and unlawful gain from the complainant.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Author Bio
