Nagpur: Circulating objectionable videos and photographs of a Scheduled Caste woman to her husband, close relatives and others on WhatsApp falls in the ambit of “public view” under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled recently.Dismissing an anticipatory bail plea by a govt employee from Ghuggus in Chandrapur district, Justice YG Khobragade said the material on record prima facie points to offences under SC/ST Act.The 28-year-old petitioner had challenged the February 21 order of the special judge (Atrocities Act) and additional sessions judge, Chandrapur, rejecting his anticipatory bail application.As per the prosecution, the woman, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and the accused stayed in the same locality and knew each other. On November 4, 2025, he allegedly demanded physical relations with her and after she refused, he allegedly circulated an obscene video and photographs to her husband and relatives on WhatsApp.The FIR, registered on November 5, 2025, invoked BNS Sections on voyeurism, stalking, Information Technology Act and SC/ST Act.The court noted the Chandrapur man was aware of the woman’s caste, and the record prima facie indicated the photographs and videos were circulated because she refused his alleged sexual demands. The FIR also recorded that the woman’s sister-in-law received the images from an unknown number, while her sister received a call and WhatsApp message from the accused’s number seeking to speak with her.The prosecution, through additional public prosecutor GS Umale, opposed the anticipatory bail plea, stating the petitioner was on the run since registration of the crime and his mobile phone, allegedly containing the videos and photographs, was yet to be seized. He argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary for seizure of the phone and further investigation.The court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran versus Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and held that Section 18 of SC/ST Act barred anticipatory bail, where the statutory ingredients were prima facie established.The court noted it had granted the petitioner ad-interim anticipatory bail on March 12, 2026, observing at that stage the FIR did not attract the SC/ST Act. After considering the material subsequently placed on record, the court found prima facie grounds for offences under the same Act.“Capturing objectionable videos/photographs and circulating it to the husband, close relatives and others on social media certainly falls within the ambit of public view,” the court recorded.
