The phrase “within public view” in the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was drafted for streets and gatherings; courts now apply it to feeds and group chats. In Nikhil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026 (2026:BHC-NAG:13009), decided on 29 September 2026, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that circulating a woman’s intimate videos and photographs on WhatsApp to her husband and relatives occurs within public view, so the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act applied, and the appeal against refusal of pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
The question before the court
Justice Y.G. Khobragade heard an appeal under the SC/ST Act against a Special Judge’s refusal of anticipatory bail. The defence argued that sending material to the victim’s own husband and relatives was not conduct “within public view”, so the offences under the Atrocities Act were not prima facie made out and the Section 18 bar should not apply. The court disagreed: circulation of objectionable videos and photographs through social media such as WhatsApp places the humiliation squarely within public view. With the prima facie case intact, the anticipatory bail bar operated with full force.
Old words, new mediums
How Section 18 shapes the defence
Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is one of the few statutory exclusions of anticipatory bail in Indian law. Its operation is conditional: it applies only where the FIR, read as it stands, discloses a prima facie offence under the Act. Defence strategy therefore concentrates on that threshold — vagueness of allegations, absence of the caste-related element, or absence of the public-view component. In this case the attempt failed because the allegations were specific, the circulation was established by the material on record, and the appellant had remained absconding during the investigation, which the court separately counted against him.
| Element | What the prosecution must prima facie show |
|---|---|
| Victim’s identity | Member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; accused a non-member |
| Prohibited act | Insult, intimidation, humiliation, sexual harassment or similar act listed in Section 3 |
| Public-view element (where required) | Conduct visible or audible to persons beyond the victim — now including digital circulation |
Practice pointer: in SC/ST Act matters, the forum and the remedy differ from ordinary bail practice — refusals are challenged by appeal under Section 14A, not by a fresh Section 482 BNSS application, and limitation runs quickly. Accused persons in digital-circulation cases should also expect courts to treat screenshots and forensic extraction reports as sufficient prima facie material at this stage.
The takeaway
For complainants, the ruling confirms that caste-based humiliation inflicted through private messaging platforms is actionable under the Atrocities Act. For accused persons, it is a reminder that in SC/ST Act cases the anticipatory bail battle is won or lost on the prima facie reading of the FIR — and that absconding during investigation can close whatever narrow door remains.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the allegations in this case?
The accused, who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, allegedly demanded sexual favours from a Scheduled Caste woman and, on refusal, recorded and circulated her intimate videos and photographs to her husband and relatives through WhatsApp. The FIR invoked Sections 77 and 78 of the BNS (voyeurism and stalking), Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Why was anticipatory bail legally unavailable?
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act excludes Section 438 CrPC — now Section 482 BNSS — where a prima facie case under the Act is made out. Once the court found that WhatsApp circulation amounted to insult and intimidation within public view, the statutory bar operated, and the merits of pre-arrest bail could not be examined further.
Does every WhatsApp message attract the "public view" test?
No. The provision concerns insults, intimidation or humiliation of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe member. What the judgment establishes is that digital circulation to third parties — family members, groups, social media — can satisfy the “public view” element just as an insult before bystanders would. A purely one-to-one private exchange raises different questions on its own facts.
What is the remedy against rejection of anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases?
An appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act to the High Court — the route taken here — rather than a fresh application under the general law. If a prima facie case under the Act is genuinely absent, courts have held the Section 18 bar does not operate, so the threshold battle is usually over the FIR’s contents.