The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has rejected the anticipatory bail to a journalist who is charged with blackmailing and harassment of a GST officer. This apparent mischief affected a persistent campaign marked by threatening messages and social media posts, following the disallowance of the journalist’s GST registration application.
Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the appeal of Pradeep Kumar Jatav and said that the allegations against him were serious and that the material collected at the time of investigation prima facie exhibited threats and attempts to get illegitimate gains from the complainant.
The case is related to 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).
The prosecution stated that complainant Jaya Sharma, who is posted as Assistant Commissioner, GST, Shivpuri, had not accepted Jatav’s GST registration application in July 2025 because it did not have the essential identity proof and other mandatory documents. Jatav was notified of the deficiencies and was recommended to complete the formal requirements; however, Jatav allegedly continued to insist that the registration be granted.
The prosecution alleged that Jatav visited Sharma’s office repeatedly, introduced himself as a journalist and demanded approval of his application. When the registration was rejected, he allegedly developed resentment against the officer and claimed that the rejection had caused him a loss of nearly Rs 20 lakh.
In the context of FIR, the issue intensified in December 2025 when Jatav allegedly started sending WhatsApp messages that included defamatory and derogatory content against Sharma. He threatened that adverse news reports would be posted against her.
The prosecution also said that various posts were therefore uploaded on Facebook, which include allegations of corruption, photographs of the officer’s residence, references to her family members and claims of alleged financial irregularities.
In the complaint, 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 objected to ruined the officer’s reputation and created pressure on her.
Also Read: GST Mismatch (GSTR-3B vs 2B) HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Amid DGGI Investigation
The State alleged that Jatav asked the officer for ₹1 crore and threatened to continue publishing defamatory material if the money was not paid. In the complaint, he repeated contacting her through calls and WhatsApp communications. Even after his number was blocked, he continued to publish content pointing to the officer and her family.
The prosecution mentioned that before the FIR was filed in May 2026, Jatav confronted Sharma outside her office and threatened to accuse her and her family of false criminal cases. These included potential charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and even historical murder cases. The complaint stated that these threats left the officer and her family feeling terrified.
The Counsel of the applicant, Advocate Abhishek Jat, stated that Jatav had been wrongly accused and that the allegations were forged. The defence argued that the case primarily relied on documentary and electronic evidence that had already been obtained, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. They also claimed that Jatav was a journalist who was trying to expose alleged misconduct by the complainant, suggesting that he had been implicated due to his investigative efforts.
Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita represented the State and countered the appeal. The representative of the complainant, Advocate Pramod Kumar Pachori, argued against the grant of anticipatory bail, claiming that the accused had tried to get illegal favours and, on denial, had sought to malign the dignity of a public servant.
The court analysed the case diary and discovered that the allegations could not be ignored at this phase. Justice Gupta observed that the applicant had tried to intimidate a public servant by posting objectionable content on various social media platforms.
The Court said, “The allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature.” It also observed that the case diary includes “some WhatsApp chats indicating an element of threat and unlawful gain from the complainant.”
The court holds that the nature and gravity of the accusations did not justify the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant, citing that it was “not inclined to exercise the discretionary relief under Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 of CrPC) in favour of the applicant.”
Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was set aside.
| Case Title | Pradeep Kumar Jatav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh |
| Case No. | Misc. Criminal Case No. 28051 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Shri Abhishek Jat |
| For Respondent | Shri Dinesh Savita |
| Madhya Pradesh High Court | Read Order |
