Nashik Court Denies Bail To Nida Khan In TCS Case, Flags ‘Brainwashing’ & Insult To Hindu Deities

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) KG Joshi passed the detailed 12- page order on May 2.

"No doubt, Sections 69 and 75 of the BNS are not attracted against the present applicant, but the entire investigation shows that accused Nos.1 and 2, Danish and Tausif with the help of the applicant, tried to brainwash the victim and tried to teach that the Hindu religion has objectionable stories. They have also specifically made obscene remarks against Lord Shiva, Lord Krishna, and Brahmadeva and hurt religious sentiments," the Court observed.

The application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 156/2026 registered at Deolali Police Station. The FIR invokes Sections 69 (sexual intercourse obtained under false promise of marriage), 75 (sexual harassment), 299 (insulting religious beliefs), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the allegations disclose a systematic effort to influence and coerce the victim into religious conversion, accompanied by caste-based humiliation and sustained psychological pressure.

According to the prosecution, the accused, Nida Khan along with co-accused colleagues, subjected the victim to sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage, harassment at the workplace, and repeated attempts to influence her religious beliefs. The investigating agency alleged that the applicant played an active role in “brainwashing” the victim by introducing religious practices, providing attire such as a burqa, sharing religious literature, and installing applications containing religious content on the victim’s phone.

It was further alleged that the accused conspired to change the victim’s identity and facilitate her relocation abroad, with references emerging during investigation to a possible link involving individuals based in Malaysia. The prosecution argued that the case may involve a wider network, making custodial interrogation essential.

The defence contended that the applicant was falsely implicated due to ulterior motives and that no offence of religious conversion is made out under the existing penal framework in Maharashtra. It was argued that mere conversations about religion or personal interactions do not constitute a criminal offence.

Counsel also highlighted discrepancies between the FIR and subsequent statements, asserting that allegations were improved over time. The applicant’s personal circumstances, including her pregnancy, were also cited to oppose custodial interrogation.

After examining the material on record, the Court found prima facie evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement, particularly in acts allegedly intended to hurt the victim’s religious sentiments and influence her beliefs.

While noting that certain serious charges may not directly apply to the applicant, the Court held that her role in the broader alleged conspiracy could not be ignored. It observed that the case involves “organised attempts” at influencing the victim, including alleged efforts to alter her identity and relocate her abroad.

“The magnitude of the offence is multi-layered and requires thorough investigation,” the court noted, adding that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy, including possible financial and international links.

The Court also relied on precedents including State v. Anil Sharma and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar to reiterate that anticipatory bail should not be granted where investigation is at a crucial stage and requires effective interrogation.

Holding that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, the court concluded that the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged role, and the ongoing investigation militated against grant of pre-arrest protection.

The application was accordingly dismissed.