On 2nd May, a Nashik Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Nida Ejaz Khan in the TCS Conversion Scandal. The court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie showed that she was involved in a wider and organised effort to influence the victim, hurt her religious sentiments, and push her towards religious conversion. The court added that the plea was not a fit case for pre arrest protection and found that her custodial interrogation is necessary to get to the root of the matter.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions and Special Judge KG Joshi of the Nashik Road Court. Nida Khan was booked at Deolali Police Station under Sections 69, 75, 299 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and several provisions of the SC/ST Act. OpIndia’s detailed report on the FIR can be checked here.
What Nida Khan argued before the court
The defence argued that Nida and the victim worked in the same office and knew each other. However, the defence completely denied any wrongdoing on her part. It was claimed that she was falsely implicated and that the main accusations were against co accused Danish and Tausif, not her. The defence also argued that there was no material evidence against Nida to prove caste based humiliation within public view.
Nida Khan’s counsel further claimed that there is no specific law in Maharashtra dealing with religious conversion. He argued that Section 299 of the BNS concerns hurt to the religious sentiments of a community, not conversion. He also argued that casual talk about religion cannot be turned into an offence and that, at the highest, only a bailable provision could apply.
The defence further argued that Nida was pregnant and claimed that arrest would cause irreparable loss to the unborn child.
What the prosecution told the court
Nida’s anticipatory bail plea was strongly opposed by the prosecution, as the court was informed that from July 2023 to 2026, the accused persons, including Nida Khan, influenced the victim towards conversion. It was further argued that Nida Khan hurt the victim’s religious sentiments. Furthermore, the prosecution pointed out that the FIR itself specifically mentioned the name and role of Nida Khan and that the investigation has pointed towards a conspiracy involving communication among the accused.
The prosecution informed the court that Nida Khan was not a passive bystander. She used to talk to the victim in the office during breaks, brainwash her into converting to Islam, and played a role in compelling her to follow specific religious practices. Furthermore, the prosecution relied on the statements given by the victim, her mother, and brother.
The investigating officer informed the court that Nida Khan had provided the victim with a burqa and books related to Islam. An application was also found on the victim’s phone that was installed with the intent of converting her religion. The officer further added that Nida Khan sent her YouTube and Instagram links containing religious teachings. The officer added that further investigation was needed into the source of those materials and her wider links.
Notably, the prosecution informed the court that Nida Khan visited the victim’s home, trained her in namaz, instructed her on wearing hijab and burqa, and was involved in a plan to change her name to Haniya. The prosecution also said the victim was to be sent to Malaysia and that documents were to be prepared with the help of a “Malegaon party”, making custodial interrogation necessary to investigate whether a larger network, including possible foreign links, was involved.
What the victim’s side told the court
During the hearing, the victim’s counsel stated that the victim was brainwashed by the accused, including Nida Khan, into following their religion. Furthermore, Nida Khan’s and the other accused’s positions in the company were used to exert undue influence on the victim, force her to follow Islam, and even compel her to eat non veg food. It was also submitted that the accused made obscene remarks against Hindu deities and humiliated the victim regarding her caste in the office.
Furthermore, it was stated that Nida Khan attempted to convert the victim’s family using threats and intimidation.
Court says prima facie role of applicant is visible
After hearing both sides, the court drew a distinction between the role attributed to the co accused and that of Nida Khan. The Judge observed that the other two accused were prima facie involved in offences under Sections 69 and 75 of the BNS, while Nida Khan appeared to be involved in the offence under Section 299 of the BNS and the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The judge specifically noted that the FIR itself mentioned the applicant by name and assigned her a role. The court said the material showed that the accused persons told “objectionable stories” about Hindu deities and hurt the victim’s religious feelings. The order also records that the applicant gave the victim a burqa, that the accused provided a book on the life of Prophet Muhammad titled “The Holy Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)”, and that the applicant used to visit the victim’s house to impart religious training.
Court finds investigation points to organised attempt
The court observed that the interaction over faith between the victim and Nida Khan was not a casual one. The material on record showed a structured and organised effort directed at the victim. The court stated that the offence appeared to be “multi dimensional and multi layered”.
The court also took serious note of the material suggesting that the accused wanted to change the victim’s name and send her to Malaysia. The judge said the victim certainly has a constitutional right to profess any religion and choose any name, but added that this does not mean she can be brainwashed into doing so through an organised plan.
Court says custodial interrogation is necessary
The court observed that police custody was necessary for proper investigation. According to the judgment, the court found the case to be complicated and requiring a probe into the role of the “Malegaon party” and the names of the cities and countries that surfaced during the investigation. It was further necessary to probe possible links to persons outside India, including a person named Imran who is said to be based in Malaysia.
Pregnancy plea did not persuade the court
One of the main arguments of the defence was that Nida Khan was pregnant and that arresting her would have an irreversible effect on the unborn child. However, the prosecution argued that there is no separate rule in law for a pregnant accused where serious offences and a complicated investigation are involved. The court agreed with the argument and held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. In this case, the court found no such exceptional circumstance.
On this basis, the judge held that the application was devoid of merit and rejected anticipatory bail plea.
