In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the act of circulating objectionable videos or photographs of a person belong to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe on a social media platform like WhatsApp, would attract the provisions of the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the same is within the 'public view.'

Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade delivered the ruling while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by one Nikhil Thepale booked under charges of Sections 77 (Voyeurism) and 78 (Stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(E) (Violation of Privacy) and 67 (Publishing Obscene Material) of the Information of Technology Act, 2000 along with and Sections 3(1)(r) (Intentional Insult In Public View) and 3(1)(w)(ii) (Non-SC/ST Person Making Sexual Advances or Acts Against SC/ST Woman) of the Atrocities Act. 

The judge noted that he himself had granted interim relief to Thepale in March this year, observing that the FIR does not attract provisions of the stringent Atrocities Act. However, the judge changed his mind after perusing the material on record, which indicated a strong case against the Applicant. 

"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," Justice Khobragade held. 

The judge therefore, dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by Thepale, who argued that recording or circulating objectionable videos on social media platform like WhatsApp would not attract Atrocities Act as the same is not in 'public view.'

Thepale was booked for allegedly demanding sexual favours from the victim, who belonged to the SC/ST community. However, when she refused to maintain sexual relationship with the accused, he shot her nude videos and photographs, and circulated the same on the WhatsApp of her husband, sister-in-law and other relatives from a different number.

The judge noted that the First Information Report (FIR) in the present case was first lodged on November 5, 2025 and that since then, Thepale had been absconding despite his anticipatory bail applications being rejected twice by a special court. 

"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 judge opined. 

With these observations, the bench denied anticipatory bail to Thepale. 

Also Read: WhatsApp Status Shared With Contacts Not Enough To Attract Offence Of Communal Enmity U/S 505(2) IPC: Karnataka High Court

Appearance: 

Advocate Mahesh Rai appeared for the Appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor GS Umale represented the State. 

Advocate Sanket Joshi was appointed for the Victim.