Leniency Towards Habitual Offenders Diminishes Effect Of Legal Sanctions: Rajasthan HC Rejects Bail Of Journalist Booked For Blackmail, Extortion

Rajasthan High Court has denied bail to a habitual offender, who was alleged to have misused his name as a journalist by threatening innocent people with reputational harm and business disruption to illegally extort money from them by blackmailing.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that in such cases victims often did not come forward to file an FIR since they fear attracting unwanted attention to their business, potentially harming their reputation even if they were innocent.

The Court held that threat of negative publicity could be a powerful deterrent. It said:

“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…These factors contribute to the reluctance of individuals to report extortion, despite knowing that they are conducting their business legally.”

The Court was hearing a bail petition by a journalist who was charged with extortion of money by misusing his journalist ID. A complaint was filed by a spa owner (“complainant”) who alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 20000 per month from the spa owner threatening to defame the complainant and disrupt the operation of the spa, despite the fact that no immoral or illegal activities were being conducted at the spa.

It was the case of the accused that he had filed a complaint against the spa owner before the competent authorities for conducting illegal activities at the spa, hence, the present case was filed by the complainant to pressurize the accused to settle.

Contrary to this, the public prosecutor revealed the fact that the accused was a habitual offender having 10 cases registered against him out of which 5 were of illegal extortion of money by different individuals for different reasons.

The prosecutor also put forth that the accused was also charged with hacking the ID of a police officer and misusing the same. It was also submitted that the complainant had also been threatened by the father of the accused of dire consequences if no compromise was made by him outside court, and a separate complaint was also active in this regard.

The prosecutor argued that the accused was tarnishing the reputation of journalism by misusing its name and had become addicted to illegal earnings. And if he was released on bail, the complainant or the witnesses would not have the courage to testify during trial which would further embolden the accused, posing an extreme danger to the citizens.

The Court accepted the arguments put forth by the public prosecutor and observed that if the Court would be lenient to someone like the accused who had repeatedly violated the law, it would diminish the effect of legal sanctions. Highlighting the fact that the accused had earlier also misused the benefit of bail, the Court stated that,

“Given the pattern of behavior and the potential risk to citizens, a more cautious approach is necessary to ensure that justice is served and to prevent further offenses…His established pattern of criminal behavior is suggesting a disregard for legal consequences. Such a habitual offender is likely to reoffend if released on bail.”

Hence, the Court opined that if the accused was released on bail, neither the complainant in this case, nor any other complainant of other FIRs would dare to give evidence against the accused during trial which would boost his morale. Hence, the accused was not found to be entitled to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Title: Manish Rathore v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 241

Click Here To Read/Download Order