Jaipur Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Inventiva Publisher in Extortion

A Jaipur court has denied anticipatory bail to Inventiva publisher Nitin Naresh, who faces criminal charges including extortion, intimidation, and conspiracy regarding a legal dispute involving Terra Invest founders Ankiti Bose and Krishan Rattan.

Jaipur Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Inventiva Publisher

New Delhi [India], October 31 (ANI): In a significant development in the ongoing legal dispute involving Terra Invest founders Ankiti Bose and Krishan Rattan, a Jaipur sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Inventiva publisher Nitin Naresh in a criminal case arising from allegations of extortion, criminal intimidation and conspiracy linked to communications concerning the investment firm. Additional Sessions Judge Renuka Singh Hudda, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, passed the order on October 28, observing that the material on record and the circumstances of the case did not warrant pre-arrest protection while the investigation remained incomplete. The court also took note of separate Delhi High Court proceedings concerning disputed publications about individuals associated with Terra Invest.

The case stems from a complaint filed by a representative of Terra Vision Investments LLC, who alleged that threatening emails demanded money in exchange for refraining from publishing further adverse material concerning the investment firm and individuals associated with it. The court considered allegations relating to emails dated August 26 and September 3, 2026, and a payment of ₹11,700 allegedly deposited into a bank account held in the name of Nine Network Private Limited, the company that owns Inventiva. The order refers to earlier Delhi High Court proceedings concerning publications about individuals associated with Terra Invest, including its founding partners Bose and Rattan. However, the bail ruling does not establish that the alleged conduct formed part of a wider conspiracy targeting the founders.

Details of the Complaint and Allegations

According to the complaint detailed in the order, the complainant is the India representative of Terra Vision Investments LLC and operates the investment firm’s official email account. The complainant alleged that emails received on August 26 and September 3, 2026, demanded money and threatened further adverse publications if the demands were not met. According to the complaint, ₹11,700 was deposited through a cash deposit machine at an HDFC Bank branch in Jaipur on September 3 into an account held in the name of Nine Network Private Limited. The complainant alleged that the payment was made in the hope that the demands and threats would stop, but another demand followed shortly afterwards.

Defence Arguments and Court Observations

The court observed that the case diary and material placed before it indicated a connection between the alleged demands, the threat of further publications and the amount deposited into the company’s account. It also noted Naresh’s defence that the account was operated online and that the money had been deposited into it without his knowledge. However, the court observed that the record did not contain material showing that he had attempted to return the amount on that basis. Naresh’s counsel denied that he had sent the emails, demanded money or threatened the complainant. The defence also argued that there was no evidence establishing that the email account used to make the alleged demands belonged to him. Counsel further submitted that Naresh was cooperating with the investigation, that his arrest was unnecessary and that he was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court. The prosecution and the complainant’s representatives opposed the plea, arguing that the allegations were serious and that further investigation remained necessary.

Legal Proceedings and Court Order

The Jaipur court referred to three civil suits before the Delhi High Court in which interim orders had been passed concerning publications about individuals associated with Terra Invest. The order records that Naresh and other defendants had been restrained from publishing further material covered by the Delhi High Court’s directions where such publications could interfere with the plaintiffs’ legal rights. The earlier proceedings included interim orders dated August 24 and September 14, 2026, concerning specified articles and further publications allegedly containing defamatory imputations against individuals associated with the investment firm. The proceedings form part of the wider legal dispute involving Inventiva and Terra Invest, including individuals associated with the investment firm such as Ankiti Bose and Krishan Rattan. However, the Delhi High Court’s interim orders concern the civil claims before it and do not, by themselves, establish the criminal allegations being investigated in Jaipur.

The Jaipur court considered the earlier proceedings while examining the circumstances of the dispute and the allegations forming the basis of the criminal complaint. The order records that, according to the case diary, Naresh allegedly threatened the complainant’s advocate outside court on October 26, 2026. The court noted that advocate Garvit Khandelwal had lodged a separate complaint against Naresh at Sadar Police Station in Jaipur on the same date in connection with the alleged threat. The allegation was among the circumstances referred to in the order while the court considered the anticipatory bail application. The separate complaint does not, by itself, establish that the alleged threat occurred.

After considering the material and the rival submissions, the court observed that the dispute between the parties concerned adverse publications and communications, while the present criminal case related to allegations of money being demanded in exchange for refraining from publishing such material. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments on anticipatory bail, including the need to consider the nature and gravity of the allegations, the presumption of innocence and the requirements of an effective investigation. It held that the circumstances of the case did not justify granting Naresh pre-arrest protection while further investigation remained pending. The court accordingly dismissed his application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR, registered at Shastri Nagar Police Station in Jaipur, invokes Sections 308(2), 308(3), 351(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The rejection of anticipatory bail is not a conviction or a final determination of guilt. The allegations against Naresh and the other accused remain subject to investigation and adjudication in accordance with law. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)