The bench of Justice Ratnesh Kumar Gupta considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by Pradeep Kumar Jatav who described himself as a journalist.
The prosecution asserted that after the rejection of his GST registration application on 18 July 2025 the applicant repeatedly approached the Assistant Commissioner of GST in Shivpuri demanding that the application be approved despite missing documents.
According to the prosecution the applicant visited the officer’s office several times introduced himself as a journalist and insisted that the registration be granted in violation of the prescribed procedure.
The prosecution further alleged that the applicant demanded twenty lakh rupees from the officer claiming that the rejection had caused him financial loss and that the amount should be paid by the complainant.
The complainant stated that the applicant threatened to publish false and derogatory material about her on Facebook if the demand was not met.
The complainant alleged that on 11 December 2025 a news item containing allegations against her was uploaded on the Facebook account of the applicant and a second post appeared on 13 December 2025 showing her residence.
The complainant added that the posts also claimed that the arrival of the Economic Offence Wing had caused a commotion at her residence and that multiple similar pieces were published by the applicant.
When confronted with the alleged fake news the complainant said the applicant increased his demand to one crore rupees and warned that continued publication of defamatory content would follow if the amount was not paid.
The complainant further stated that after she warned of initiating legal proceedings for harassment the applicant replied that he would implicate her and her family under a false case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Based on the written complaint of the Assistant Commissioner of GST the police registered an FIR.
The defence counsel argued that there was no independent and cogent material on record to substantiate the alleged offences and that the applicant had been falsely implicated.
The counsel for the State opposed the anticipatory bail application submitting that the allegations were serious and warranted denial of bail.
Justice Ratnesh Kumar Gupta observed that the allegations against the applicant were serious in nature.
The bench noted that the prosecution case revealed that the applicant not only attempted to get his work done on the basis of lacking documents but also tried to intimidate a public servant by maligning her dignity through unwanted news posted on various social media platforms.
The court added that perusal of the case diary showed WhatsApp chats indicating ingredients of threat and unlawful gain from the complainant.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the bench concluded that the allegations were sufficiently grave to deny anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail application of Pradeep Kumar Jatav was therefore dismissed.