The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), presided over by Justice Y. G. Khobragade, has ruled that capturing objectionable photographs and videos of a Scheduled Caste woman and circulating them across social media platforms such as WhatsApp falls within the ambit of “public view” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act is attracted where prima facie offences are established, the High Court dismissed a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail, observing that an accused who evades arrest is not entitled to pre-arrest relief.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Nikhil Madhukar Thepale, approached the High Court under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, challenging an order dated February 21, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) & Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The Special Court had rejected his anticipatory bail application (ABA No. 73/2026) arising out of Crime No. 215/2025 registered at Ghuggus Police Station, Chandrapur.
The crime was registered on November 5, 2025, for offences punishable under Sections 77 and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
According to the prosecution, the informant, a married woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, lived in the same locality as the appellant, who belongs to a non-SC/ST community. On November 4, 2025, the appellant demanded physical relations with her. When she refused, he circulated her captured nude photographs and objectionable videos via WhatsApp to her husband, sister-in-law, and other close relatives. In addition, the informant’s sister received calls and WhatsApp messages from the appellant’s phone number conveying that he wished to speak with the informant.
The appellant had initially moved the Trial Court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected. He then preferred Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2025 before the High Court, but withdrew it on February 9, 2026, with liberty to apply afresh following the submission of the chargesheet. After the chargesheet was filed, his subsequent anticipatory bail application (ABA No. 73/2026) was rejected by the Special Court on February 21, 2026, leading to the present appeal. While the High Court had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail on March 12, 2026, subject to conditions, the appeal remained pending for final hearing.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that even taking the First Information Report (FIR) as true, there were no allegations that the appellant had abused or insulted the informant on account of her caste in public view. The counsel submitted that merely sharing videos and photographs on WhatsApp does not constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), or 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, it was argued that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act did not operate, and the Trial Court had erred in refusing bail.
In response, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the appointed counsel for the informant strongly opposed the appeal. They contended that the appellant had been absconding since the FIR was registered. It was highlighted that the appellant, being fully aware of the informant’s caste, circulated the obscene videos and photographs to her relatives because she refused his sexual demands. The prosecution further pointed out that the mobile phone used to record and transmit the media had not yet been recovered, making custodial interrogation necessary to complete the investigation and seize the device.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed that the record prima facie demonstrated that the appellant, aware of the informant’s caste, captured her nude photographs and videos and distributed them on WhatsApp following the rejection of his sexual demands.
Addressing the appellant’s evasion of the law, the Court noted that the appellant had remained absconding since the crime was registered. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reaffirmed that when an accused is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender, the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise. The Court observed that the appellant was intentionally evading arrest and obstructing the investigating officer in gathering evidence.
Rejecting the defense contention that digital transmission does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “public view,” the Court held:
“capturing objectionable videos/photographs of the respondent No.2/informant and circulating the same to the informant’s husband, her close relatives and others through social media like WhatsApp by the appellant certainly falls within the ambit of public view within the meaning of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, 1989.”
Addressing its previous ad-interim order dated March 12, 2026, the Court explained that upon reviewing the complete record, the necessary ingredients to prima facie constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were established. Relying on the precedent in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another, the Court emphasized that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act establishes a clear statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail in such cases.
Decision
Concluding that there was no reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed that the fees of the appointed counsel for the informant be quantified and paid in accordance with the rules.
Case Title: Nikhil s/o Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026
Bench: Justice Y. G. Khobragade
Date: 29/09/2026
