The Bombay High Court has held that circulating objectionable photographs or videos of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe through WhatsApp can fall within the expression “public view” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Nagpur Bench, comprising Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade, made the observation while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by a man accused of recording and circulating objectionable photographs and videos of a woman belonging to the SC/ST community.
Background Of The Case
The case concerned allegations that the accused, Nikhil Madhukar Thepale, had demanded sexual favours from the woman. After she allegedly refused to maintain a sexual relationship with him, the accused allegedly recorded her objectionable videos and photographs.
It was further alleged that the accused subsequently circulated the material through WhatsApp to the woman’s husband, sister-in-law and other relatives using a different mobile number. The FIR was registered on 5 November 2025.
The accused was booked under Sections 77 and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and relevant provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va).
Dispute Over The Expression ‘Public View’
The accused argued that the alleged circulation of the photographs and videos through WhatsApp could not attract the SC/ST Act because the material was not displayed in a public place or made available to the general public.
The Court, however, did not accept this contention at the stage of considering anticipatory bail.
After examining the material placed before it, the Court found that there was prima facie material indicating that the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act were attracted.
WhatsApp Circulation Can Fall Within ‘Public View’
The High Court specifically observed that circulation of objectionable videos or photographs of the victim through social media platforms such as WhatsApp could constitute conduct occurring “within the public view.”
The Court’s observation is significant because the accused had specifically relied upon the argument that communication through WhatsApp was private in nature and therefore could not satisfy the requirement of public view under the SC/ST Act.
The Court, on the material available at the bail stage, found that the circulation of the objectionable material to the victim’s husband, sister-in-law and other relatives through WhatsApp was sufficient to prima facie attract the relevant provisions.
Court Had Earlier Granted Interim Relief
The Court also noted that interim relief had earlier been granted to the accused in March 2026, when it was observed that the FIR, at that stage, did not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
However, after subsequently examining the material placed on record, the Court found prima facie grounds indicating the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Act.
Thus, the Court declined to continue the protection sought by the accused.
Accused Had Remained Absconding
The Court also took into consideration the conduct of the accused after registration of the FIR.
It noted that the accused had remained absconding since the registration of the crime and that his anticipatory bail applications had already been rejected twice by the Special Court.
Considering these circumstances along with the material on record, the High Court held that the accused was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Bombay High Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court accordingly dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Nikhil Madhukar Thepale.
The ruling highlights that, at the stage of considering bail, the circulation of objectionable material concerning an SC/ST woman through WhatsApp may, depending on the facts and evidence, satisfy the requirement of conduct being within “public view” for the purpose of the SC/ST Act.
The Court’s findings were made on a prima facie assessment while deciding the bail proceedings and do not amount to a final determination of guilt.
