Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bail granted to journalist as Sting Operation evidence was submitted to authorities before extortion FIR was registered.

Rajni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: June 25, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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 2

Following 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 3

Subsequently, the complainant filed an FIR (Crime No. 204/2026) alleging that the applicant conspired to extort money through blackmail

Source reference: para 3, 4

The 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, 2.1
02

Issues

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, 5
03

Law 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 1

Section 480(3) of the BNSS (Section 437(3) CrPC) regarding conditions for bail

Source reference: para 6

principles 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, 5
04

Reasoning

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, 5

The 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 3

the 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, 3.1
05

Holding

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 6
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

RajnivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · June 25, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment