The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a regular bail application filed by a Tehelka Digital News journalist who was allegedly falsely implicated and arrested in a retaliatory extortion case after conducting sting operations that exposed an illegal prenatal sex determination and female foeticide racket across nursing homes in Dewas district.

The Court said that since the journalist's media team had already dispatched the investigative video recordings to top state functionaries—including the Health Commissioner, the Director General of Police, and the National Human Rights Commission—before the First Information Report (FIR) was registered.

The Bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi observed, "After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, particularly taking into account the fact that on 06.04.2026 (Annexure A/2), the video of Sting Operation was already sent to the Commissioner, Health Department, Madhya Pradesh, Chairperson of NHRC, DGP of Madhya Pradesh as well as CM&HO, Dewas and on 06/07.04.2026, it was sent to CMHO, Dewas and only after that FIR was registered on 07.04.2026, this Court is inclined to allow this application and enlarge the applicant on bail."


Advocate Aman Malviya appeared for the Applicant, whereas Government Advocate Hemant Sharma appeared for the State.

The applicant, a journalist associated with a Tehelka Digital News channel, was engaged in public interest journalism and conducted multiple sting operations to expose illegal prenatal sex determination, unlawful abortions, and female foeticide operating across various nursing homes and hospitals, hence, multiple criminal cases were registered against her.

The present application arose out of an order passed by the trial court rejecting her regular bail plea in connection with a specific crime registered against her under the provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with other co-accused individuals, hatched a conspiracy and attempted to extort money from the complainant under the pretext of the recorded sting operations.

The Applicant submitted that she was entirely innocent and was falsely implicated with malafide intentions, which amounted to a gross abuse of the criminal justice machinery.

It was contended that prior to the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), the entire material and video recordings of the sting operation had already been dispatched by her news channel to the higher authorities of the State, including the Health Commissioner, the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, the Director General of Police, and the Chief Medical & Health Officer.

It was further pointed out that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, another co-accused had been granted interim protection against coercive steps by the Supreme Court, and the applicant herself had already been granted bail by the High Court in three other connected criminal cases.

On the contrary, the State vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail, arguing that the allegations levelled against the applicant were gravity-laden and serious in nature.

It was contended that the applicant had actively attempted to blackmail and extort money from the complainant by utilizing the recorded videos, and therefore, did not deserve any discretionary relief from the Court.

The Court observed that the video recordings of the sting operation were already transmitted to the highest healthcare and law enforcement authorities of the State prior to the registration of the criminal complaint by the informant.

"Accordingly, without commenting anything on merits of the matter, the present application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of lakh only) the trial Court for his / her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he/she shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 = Section 480 (3) of BNSS, 2023", the Court said.

Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail.

Cause Title: Rajni v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:16869]

Appearances:

Applicant: Advocate Aman Malviya 

Respondent: Government Advocate Hemant Sharma

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: