High Court Dismisses Appeal for Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Case — Appellant's Absconding Status and Evidence Necessity Cited.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant, who was accused of circulating obscene videos of the informant, a married woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, after she refused his sexual advances. The FIR was registered on 05/11/2025, citing multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the SC/ST Act, 1989. The appellant initially sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Trial Court, leading to this appeal. The appellant argued that merely circulating videos did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, while the prosecution contended that the appellant's actions were motivated by the informant's caste and warranted custodial interrogation. The court noted that the appellant had been absconding since the registration of the crime, which was a significant factor against granting bail. The court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that the circulation of objectionable material in public view fell within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court's decision and highlighting the necessity of the appellant's presence for evidence collection.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act - The court held that the appellant's actions of circulating objectionable videos of the informant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, constituted an offence under the SC/ST Act, thus creating a bar to anticipatory bail under Section 18 - The appellant's absconding status further justified the denial of bail - Held that the learned Trial Court's findings were upheld (Paras 15-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision to deny anticipatory bail based on the appellant's absconding status and the nature of the offences.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
  • 1989
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • 2023
  • Information Technology Act
  • 2000
  • public view
  • sexual offences
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 176

Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2026

2026-09-29

Y. G. Khobragade

Mahesh Rai, G. S. Umale, Sanket Joshi

Nikhil s/o Madhukar Thepale

State of Maharashtra, XYZ (Victim)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought anticipatory bail.

Filing Reason

Appellant's alleged circulation of obscene videos of the informant.

Previous Decisions

Initial bail application rejected by the Trial Court.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Whether the actions of the appellant constituted an offence under the SC/ST Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that circulating videos did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. Prosecution contended that the appellant's actions warranted custodial interrogation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the circulation of objectionable videos in public view constituted an offence under the SC/ST Act, creating a bar to anticipatory bail under Section 18, especially given the appellant's absconding status.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant/accused is not a member of SC/ST community, whereas the respondent No.2 / informant is a member of Scheduled Caste community.

Procedural History

The appellant initially sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Trial Court. The appellant then filed a second application for anticipatory bail, which was also rejected, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va), 18
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 77, 78
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: 66(E), 67
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revocation of Leave Under Clause 12 Letters Patent and Allows Amendment to Plaint on Jurisdiction. Court holds that jurisdiction is determined by plaint averments as a whole and subsequent amendment cannot cure lack of jur...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Interim Maintenance Award for Minor Daughters in Section 125 CrPC Case. High Court's Reduction Set Aside Because Wife's Earnings Alone Did Not Halve Father's Shared Maintenance Obligation.