Accused Allegedly Circulated Victim's Obscene Videos on WhatsApp; Court Upholds Rejection of Bail Due to Public View and Absconding Status
In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Y.G. Khobragade, dismissed the appeal for anticipatory bail filed by Nikhil, the appellant accused under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court's decision was rendered in the case titled Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra, after considering the gravity of the allegations and the accused's conduct post the alleged crime.
The case, registered as Crime No.215/2025 at Ghuggus Police Station, involved serious accusations against Nikhil, who was alleged to have demanded sexual relations from a married woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Upon her refusal, he purportedly circulated obscene videos and photographs of the victim to her husband and other relatives via WhatsApp. This act, according to the court, fell within the ambit of "public view" as required under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, thus invoking a bar under Section 18 of the Act against granting anticipatory bail.
Despite an earlier ad-interim relief granted by the High Court, which temporarily provided anticipatory bail, a fuller examination of the case led to the conclusion that the prima facie elements of the offences were indeed met. The court noted that the accused's actions were deliberate, knowing the victim's caste, and the circulation of the material was sufficient to constitute "public view" under the law.
The prosecution highlighted that the accused had been absconding since the crime's registration, and the mobile phone used to circulate the objectionable content was yet to be seized, necessitating custodial interrogation. The court concurred with this view, referencing past judgments, including Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), which assert that absconding accused typically do not qualify for anticipatory bail.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the accused had not presented substantial grounds to challenge the trial court's order denying bail, reinforcing the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act due to the public view provision. The appeal was therefore dismissed, marking a pivotal stance on the interpretation of public view in the context of digital communication and social media under the SC/ST Act.
Bottom Line :
Anticipatory bail under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act was refused where the accused, aware that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste, allegedly circulated her obscene videos/photos on WhatsApp to her husband and relatives after she refused his demand for sexual relations; such circulation was held to be within "public view", attracting Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and the bar under Section 18, particularly when the accused had remained absconding.
Statutory provision(s): Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sections 14-A, 18, 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 77, 78; Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66(E), 67.
Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989162
