WhatsApp Circulation Of Victim’s Objectionable Videos Falls Within ‘Public View’ Under SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail
The Court also noted that the accused had remained absconding since the registration of the case and was prima facie obstructing the collection of evidence.
The Bombay High Court has held that circulating a victim’s objectionable videos or photographs to her husband, relatives and others through WhatsApp falls within the ambit of “public view” under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The Court consequently held that Section 18 of the Act barred the grant of anticipatory bail and dismissed the accused’s appeal against the rejection of his bail application.
The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act challenging a Special Judge’s order refusing anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the SC/ST Act.
A Bench of Justice Y.G. Khobragade observed: “… taking into consideration the material placed on record, it prima facie appears that, there exists necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act because of the circulation of objectionable videos/photographs of the victim on social media like WhatsApp from his mobile, which is within the public view. Therefore, the bar is created under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.”
Advocate Mahesh Rai appeared for the appellant. G.S. Umale, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State, while Advocate Sanket Joshi appeared for the victim.
Background
According to the prosecution, the accused knew the victim, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, as they lived in the same locality. It was alleged that he demanded physical relations from her and, after she refused, circulated objectionable videos and photographs to her husband and close relatives through WhatsApp.
The accused’s first application for anticipatory bail was rejected. He later withdrew an appeal before the High Court with liberty to apply afresh after the filing of the chargesheet. His subsequent application was also rejected by the Special Judge, leading to the present appeal.
The High Court initially granted ad interim anticipatory bail after observing that the FIR did not attract the SC/ST Act. At the final hearing, however, the accused argued that circulating the material through WhatsApp did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act and that Section 18 consequently did not bar anticipatory bail.
The prosecution opposed the appeal by contending that the accused knew the victim’s caste, had circulated the material to her family members and had remained absconding. It further submitted that his mobile phone had not been seized and was required for collecting evidence.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that it was undisputed that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, while the accused did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It further found that the material prima facie indicated that the accused knew the victim’s caste and circulated the videos and photographs after she refused his demand.
The Bench observed: “On face of the record, it prima facie appears that the appellant/accused recorded nude videos and photographs of the informant and circulated it through 'WhatsApp' because of non-fulfillment of his sexual desires by the Informant/Respondent No.2.”
The Court rejected the contention that the absence of caste-based verbal abuse or insult in a public space excluded the application of the SC/ST Act. It held that circulation through social media to the victim’s husband, close relatives and others was capable of satisfying the requirement of public view.
The Court relied upon Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another (2025) and held that, once the material prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va), the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied to the anticipatory-bail plea.
The Court noted that the accused had remained absconding since the registration of the case. It observed that an accused who avoids arrest ordinarily cannot seek the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail.
The Bench remarked: “In the case in hand, the appellant / accused has remained absconding since the date of registration of crime. Therefore, to my mind, the appellant / accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail.”
The Court further found that the accused’s continued absence indicated that he was avoiding arrest and creating obstacles for the investigating officer in collecting evidence.
The Court added: “Therefore, it prima facie appears that the appellant is himself avoiding his arrest as well as causing hurdles to the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence.”
Conclusion
The Court found no substantial ground to interfere with the Special Judge’s order refusing anticipatory bail. It dismissed the appeal and directed that the appointed Advocate’s fee for representing the victim be quantified and paid according to the applicable rules.
Cause Title: Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:13009)