Refusing to interfere with the denial of pre-arrest bail, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held that, prima facie, circulating a woman’s objectionable videos and photographs on WhatsApp to her husband and close relatives falls within “public view” under the SC/ST Act, so that Section 18 bars anticipatory bail, and that an accused who has remained absconding since the FIR is not entitled to the relief; the allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
Nagpur: The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by Nikhil Madhukar Thepale, who is accused of circulating objectionable videos and photographs of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste on WhatsApp, against a Special Court’s order refusing him anticipatory bail, holding that the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies on the material on record [Nikhil Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra and Another].
Justice Y. G. Khobragade of the Nagpur Bench delivered the oral judgment on September 29, 2026 in an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act against the order of February 21, 2026 of the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) and Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The FIR is Crime No. 215 of 2025 registered at Ghuggus Police Station on November 5, 2025 under Sections 77 and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 66E 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. The identity of the complainant is withheld in the judgment and has been withheld here.
The prosecution’s case
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a married woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and the accused knew each other. On November 4, 2025, the accused allegedly contacted her and demanded a physical relationship, which she refused. He then allegedly forwarded an objectionable video he had captured to her husband and close relatives through WhatsApp. The FIR also states that the material was sent to her sister-in-law from an unknown number, and that her sister received a call and a WhatsApp message from the accused’s number saying he wanted to speak to her. These are allegations and have not been proved.
The Court noted that the accused did not deny that he is not a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes while the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and recorded that, on the record, he appeared to be aware of her caste.
Background of the case
The accused first sought anticipatory bail from the trial court, which refused it. He then filed Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2025 before the High Court, which he withdrew on February 9, 2026 with liberty to apply afresh after the charge-sheet was filed. His fresh application, ABA No. 73 of 2026, was rejected by the Special Judge on February 21, 2026, leading to the present appeal, his second before the High Court.
On March 12, 2026, the High Court granted him ad-interim anticipatory bail on terms, observing then that the FIR did not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act and that Section 18 therefore did not create a bar. He furnished surety and bond, and the charge-sheet has since been filed.
Contentions before the Court
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Mahesh Rai argued that, even on the FIR’s own case, the accused circulated the material because his demand was refused, and that mere circulation on WhatsApp does not constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va), so no bar arises under Section 18. He also submitted that the accused did not abuse or insult the complainant in her caste in public view and that the essential ingredients of Section 3 were not made out.
Additional Public Prosecutor G. S. Umale for the State and Advocate Sanket Joshi, appointed for the complainant, opposed the appeal. The prosecution submitted that the accused has been absconding since the registration of the crime, that the videos and photographs are saved on his mobile phone, which is yet to be seized, and that custodial interrogation is necessary to seize it and to collect other information.
‘Public view’ and the bar under Section 18
Rejecting the argument that the ingredients of the offence were absent, the Court held that capturing objectionable videos and photographs of the complainant and circulating them to her husband, close relatives and others through social media prima facie falls within the ambit of public view under Section 3 of the Act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another, it held that Section 18 bars anticipatory bail for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va). Explaining why it was departing from its interim view, the Court said:
“However, 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.”
Absconding accused
The Court separately held that the accused was not entitled to anticipatory bail because he had remained absconding since the date the crime was registered. It relied on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), which holds that when an accused is absconding and has been declared a proclaimed offender, there is normally no question of granting anticipatory bail. It added that the Special Judge had refused the application on the ground of absconding, and observed:
“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.”
Finding no substantial ground to interfere with the Special Judge’s order, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed that the fees of the appointed counsel for the complainant be quantified and paid as per rules.
Why the order matters
The order applies the statutory bar on anticipatory bail in the SC/ST Act to alleged online circulation of private images, treating transmission to a limited group of relatives over a messaging platform as prima facie within “public view”. It also shows the weight a court may place on an accused’s absconding at the pre-arrest bail stage. The findings are prima facie, made only for deciding the bail appeal, and the accused is presumed innocent until the trial ends.
Case Title: Nikhil Madhukar Thepale v. State of Maharashtra and Another [Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Y. G. Khobragade, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Mahesh Rai for the appellant; Additional Public Prosecutor G. S. Umale for the State; Advocate Sanket Joshi (appointed) for the complainant