The Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to a man accused of habitually extorting money by misusing his status as a journalist.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni found that the accused, who had a history of similar offenses, posed a serious threat to public safety and the integrity of the legal process.

"The consideration of bail for a habitual offender who has repeatedly extorted money from multiple individuals requires stricter scrutiny," the Bench remarked.

The Court observed, "Petitioner is a person who is a habitual offender of criminal intimidation and extortion of money from members of the public in a particular fashion in the name of journalism and has committed many crimes...The Court being lenient on someone who has repeatedly violated the law would diminish the effect of legal sanctions."

The accused, identified as a journalist, was charged with extorting money from a spa owner by threatening to defame the business and disrupt its operations. The complaint, filed by the spa owner, alleged that the accused demanded a monthly payment of Rs. 20,000 in exchange for not publicizing false information that could harm the business's reputation. The spa owner asserted that no illegal activities were taking place at the establishment, making the extortion demands baseless and malicious.

In his defense, the accused claimed that he had previously lodged a complaint with authorities against the spa for conducting illegal activities. He argued that the current case was an attempt by the spa owner to pressure him into settling the matter.

The public prosecutor (PP) contended that the accused had 10 cases registered against him, five of which involved illegal extortion of money from various individuals. Additionally, the prosecutor disclosed that the accused had been charged with hacking the ID of a police officer and misusing it, further complicating his legal standing. He also highlighted that the accused's father had allegedly threatened the spa owner with dire consequences if a compromise was not reached outside of court. This intimidation, the prosecutor argued, was part of a broader pattern of behavior aimed at avoiding legal repercussions.

The PP contended that releasing the accused on bail would severely undermine the confidence of the complainant and other potential witnesses, who would likely fear retaliation and thus be unwilling to testify against him. The prosecutor further argued that the accused's actions were tarnishing the reputation of journalism, and his addiction to illegal earnings posed a continuing danger to the public.

The Single-Judge agreed with the prosecution's arguments, emphasizing the severe implications of the accused's actions. It noted that victims of such extortion schemes often refrain from filing formal complaints due to the fear of negative publicity and the potential harm to their business and reputation, even if they are innocent.

"Victims fear that the extorter could retaliate by publicly shaming or defaming them, causing damage to their reputation or business. People feel powerless or scared to take legal action. The threat of negative publicity can be a powerful deterrent," the Court observed.

The Court also expressed concern that leniency in such cases could weaken the deterrent effect of legal sanctions. Highlighting the accused's repeated violations of the law, the court stated, "Given the pattern of behaviour and the potential risk to citizens, a more cautious approach is necessary to ensure that justice is served and to prevent further offenses."

The Bench concluded that granting bail to the accused would not only embolden him but would also dissuade other victims from coming forward. The Court also emphasized that the accused's established pattern of criminal behaviour indicated a disregard for legal consequences and a likelihood of reoffending if released on bail.

"His established pattern of criminal behaviour suggests a disregard for legal consequences. Such a habitual offender is likely to reoffend if released on bail," the Court stated.

Consequently, the Court opined, "Accused has failed to carve out a strong case for bail in his favour. Bail application therefore, is utterly misconceived under law hence deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. The above observations shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case."

Cause Title: Manish Rathore v. State of Rajasthan [Neutral Citation No. 2024:RJ-JD:36083]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vineet Kumar Jain, Advocate Harshwardhan Singh Rathore

Respondent: Ramesh Dewasi (PP), Advocate Om Prakash Choudhary, Senior Advocate Sachin Acharya, Advocate Dinesh Kumar Godara

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Rajendra Prakash SoniRajasthan High CourtExtortionJournalism

Sukriti Mishra