Facts
The applicant, a journalist with Tehelka Digital News, conducted sting operations to expose illegal prenatal sex determination and abortions in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh
Source reference: para 2Following these investigations, she shared the video evidence with senior authorities, including the Health Department and the DGP, on April 6th and 7th, 2026
Source reference: para 3Subsequently, the complainant filed an FIR (Crime No. 204/2026) alleging that the applicant conspired to extort money through blackmail
Source reference: para 3, 4The applicant was formally arrested on April 13, 2026, and after her bail was rejected by the Trial Court on May 13, 2026, she moved the High Court for regular bail
Source reference: para 1, 2.1Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) in view of the sequence of events and the nature of the allegations.
Source reference: para 1, 5Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973) governing the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail
Source reference: para 1Section 480(3) of the BNSS (Section 437(3) CrPC) regarding conditions for bail
Source reference: para 6principles of parity in bail (as a co-accused was already released) and the absence of prima facie intent for extortion where evidence had already been submitted to state authorities
Source reference: para 3, 5Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicant had already dispatched the sting operation videos to the Commissioner of the Health Department, the NHRC, and the DGP between April 6th and April 7th, 2026
Source reference: para 3, 5The Court reasoned that if the material was already provided to the highest state officials before the FIR was registered on April 7th, the possibility of the applicant using that same material to extort or blackmail the complainant was significantly diminished
Source reference: para 3the Court noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in three related crimes (Nos. 194, 195, and 205 of 2026) and that a co-accused had been released on bail, establishing a basis for parity
Source reference: para 3, 3.1Holding
The High Court held that given the prior disclosure of the investigative material to authorities, the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail
The High Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions of regular appearance and non-violation of the law during the trial period
Source reference: para 6Original Court PDF
RajnivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in