The accused contacted a woman and demanded physical relations. When she refused, he sent an obscene video made on his mobile phone to her husband and close relatives via WhatsApp.
Nagpur – The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a government employee from Ghughus (Chandrapur district) in an SC/ST Act case. Justice Y.G. Khobragade issued the order on September 29. The case relates to the posting of obscene videos and photos of a married woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste on social media.
The case pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 127/2026, in which the accused is Nikhil, son of Madhukar Thepale (28 years old). He is in government service and lives near the Sneh Prabha Mangal office in Ward No. 3 of Ghughus. Advocate Mahesh Rai appeared for the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor G.S. appeared for the state. Umale and the victim’s lawyer, Sanket Joshi, appeared.
According to the prosecution, the victim is a married woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The accused and the victim live in the same area and are known to each other. It is alleged that on November 4, 2025, the accused contacted the woman and demanded physical relations. When the woman refused, he sent an obscene video made on his mobile phone to the woman’s husband and close relatives via WhatsApp.
According to the FIR, nude photos were also sent to the woman’s sister-in-law from an unknown mobile number. The woman’s sister also received calls and WhatsApp messages from the accused’s mobile number, stating that he wanted to speak with her. In the FIR, the woman has listed the mobile numbers of her husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law, and the accused.
On November 5, 2025, a case was registered at the Ghughus police station under sections 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code, 2023, sections 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused initially sought anticipatory bail in the lower court, which was rejected. Subsequently, he filed Criminal Appeal No. 599/2025 in the High Court. On February 9, 2026, he withdrew this appeal with the concession that he could file a new application after the charge sheet was filed.
The accused then filed Anticipatory Bail Application (ABA) No. 73/2026. On February 21, 2026, the Special Judge (Atrocities Act) and Additional Sessions Judge of Chandrapur rejected this application. The accused approached the High Court for the second time against this same order. On March 12, 2026, the High Court granted interim relief and temporary anticipatory bail on certain conditions. The accused submitted a bond and sureties in the lower court. The charge sheet in the case has now been filed.
The accused stated that the SC/ST Act does not apply if the victim is merely sent via WhatsApp.
Advocate Rai stated that according to the FIR, the accused demanded sexual intercourse and, after being refused, sent videos and photos to her husband and relatives. According to him, merely sending the sexual favors via WhatsApp does not constitute offenses under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and therefore, the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act does not apply. He argued that the lower court’s order was passed without considering the facts and law, and therefore, it should be set aside.
Additional Public Prosecutor Umale, representing the state, and Advocate Joshi, representing the victim, strongly opposed the appeal. The prosecution stated: The accused has been absconding since the FIR was filed. The accused knew the victim’s caste. The incriminating videos and photos are stored on the accused’s mobile phone, but the mobile phone has not yet been seized. Custodial interrogation is necessary to seize the mobile phone and gather further information.
Publicly humiliated the victim by circulating nude photos on the mobile phone after she refused his demand for sexual intercourse.
After reviewing the records, Justice Khobragade stated that the accused was well aware of the victim’s caste. She also stated that the accused is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, while the victim is a Scheduled Caste. The accused has not denied this fact.
The court prima facie held that the accused made nude videos and photos of the woman and circulated them via WhatsApp when his sexual desires were not satisfied.
Regarding the absconding of the accused, the court cited Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (ALL MR (Cri.) 3300) and stated that generally, the question of granting anticipatory bail to a fugitive or proclaimed offender does not arise. The court remarked: “The accused in this case has been absconding since the date of registration of the crime; therefore, in my opinion, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
Regarding the argument of “public view,” the court did not accept the argument of the accused’s lawyer that the accused did not publicly insult the victim with caste-related slurs. The court said:
“Making objectionable videos/photos of the victim and sending them to her husband, close relatives, and others through social media such as WhatsApp certainly falls within the scope of “public view” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act.”
The court cited the Supreme Court’s case of Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025 AIR (SC) 4083). According to this, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offenses. The court stated in its own interim order that the interim relief granted on March 12, 2026, was on the grounds that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the FIR. However, upon reviewing the material now on record, it states:
“Prima facie, the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) appear to be present, as objectionable videos/photos of the victim were circulated on social media from the accused’s mobile phone, which is in the public domain. Therefore, the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 18 of the Act is barred.”
Regarding the lower court’s order, the court stated that the lower court had dismissed the application on the grounds of the accused’s absconding. This prima facie suggests:
“The accused is evading arrest and obstructing the investigating officer from gathering evidence.”
Considering the specific facts of the case and the decisions in Lavesh and Kiran, the court held that there was no basis to interfere with the lower court’s findings. The court dismissed the appeal. With the dismissal of the appeal, the interim relief has expired. The prosecution may now proceed with the seizure of the accused’s mobile phone and custodial interrogation.
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Courtesy: Hindi News