Habitual offender misusing journalism for extortion shows disregard for law: Rajasthan HC denies bail [Read Order]

Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a significant order denying bail to a habitual offender accused of extorting money from multiple individuals by misusing his status as a journalist.

The court of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni dismissed a bail application filed by Manish Rathore, who was charged under Sections 384, 327, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for extortion, criminal intimidation, and blackmail.
The court noted that the petitioner, Manish Rathore, was accused of extorting money from the complainant by threatening to defame his spa center and ruin his business. 
He allegedly demanded Rs. 20,000 per month from the complainant to allow the spa to continue operating, threatening to make a video of the spa go viral if his demands were not met.

Justice Soni observed that a total of five FIRs had been registered against the petitioner in Pali city in 2024 alone for similar extortion attempts. The court stated: “It prima facie appears that the filing of these five reports against the petitioner is merely illustrative, as in such cases, victims often do not come forward to file F.I.R.s due to fear and the threat of defamation.”

Expressing its view on the petitioner’s habitual offending, the court noted: “The petitioner 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. His established pattern of criminal behavior suggests a disregard for legal consequences.”

The court referred to the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496, to emphasize the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the character and behavior of the accused, and the likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Justice Soni observed that if the petitioner were released on bail, neither the complainant in this case nor the complainants in other FIRs would dare to give evidence against him during the trial. He held that a more cautious approach was necessary to ensure justice and prevent further offenses.
In conclusion, the court found no merit in the bail application and dismissed it, allowing the case against the petitioner to proceed to trial. The court stated: “I am of the considered view that, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation in this case, the role attributed to the petitioner, the antecedents of the applicant, and the case set up against the petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

[Read Order]