The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an appeal seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of circulating objectionable videos and photographs of a Scheduled Caste woman through WhatsApp.
Justice Y. G. Khobragade held that, at the preliminary stage, the material on record disclosed the necessary ingredients of the provisions invoked under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It also took note of the appellant having remained absconding since registration of the crime.
Background
The case arose from Crime No. 215/2025 registered at Ghuggus Police Station, Chandrapur, on November 5, 2025. The allegations included provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act and the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had contacted the woman and demanded physical relations. Following her refusal, he allegedly circulated an obscene video and photographs to her husband and close relatives through WhatsApp.
The appellant had earlier approached the courts for anticipatory bail. After withdrawing an earlier appeal with liberty to seek bail after filing of the charge-sheet, he filed a fresh application. The Special Judge rejected that application on February 21, 2026, leading to the present appeal.
On examining the record, the High Court noted that the appellant was aware of the informant’s caste and that the allegations concerned circulation of nude photographs and videos through WhatsApp. The Court further recorded that the material prima facie indicated circulation of the material through social media to the woman’s husband, sister-in-law and other relatives.
The appellant argued that merely forwarding the photographs or videos did not satisfy the requirements of the SC/ST Act and therefore Section 18, which restricts anticipatory bail in specified cases under the Act, would not apply. The prosecution opposed the appeal, submitting that the appellant knew the woman belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that his mobile phone, allegedly containing the material, had not yet been seized.
The Court also considered the appellant’s continued absence after registration of the crime. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), it observed that an accused who remains absconding would ordinarily not be entitled to anticipatory bail.
On the applicability of the SC/ST Act, the Court relied upon Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another. It held that the allegations, at the prima facie stage, disclosed the necessary ingredients of Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va), with the alleged circulation through WhatsApp being treated as falling within the meaning of public view for the purpose under consideration.
The Court stated,
"Therefore, considering peculiar facts of the present case as well as ratio laid down in cases of Lavesh and Kiran, cited supra, I do not find any substantial grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial court in the impugned order."
The Bombay High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026 and declined to interfere with the Special Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail.
The Court also directed that the fees of the appointed counsel for respondent No. 2 be quantified and paid according to the rules.
Case Details
Case Title: Nikhil s/o Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026
Judge: Justice Y. G. Khobragade
Decision Date: September 29, 2026
