A Sessions Court in Nashik has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a woman accused in a case involving allegations of forced religious conversion, caste-based harassment, and hurting religious sentiments.
The applicant was booked in connection with Crime No. 156/2026 registered at Deolali Police Station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, engaged in a systematic effort to “brainwash” the victim, compel her to adopt their religion, and subject her to repeated humiliation on the basis of caste. It was further alleged that the accused provided religious material, including a burqa and literature, installed religious applications on the victim’s phone, and attempted to influence her to change her name and relocate abroad.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the case involves a larger conspiracy, possibly with international links, and requires custodial interrogation to investigate aspects such as financial assistance, digital evidence, and communication between the accused persons.
The applicant, on the other hand, contended that the allegations were false and motivated, and that no offence was made out against her. It was also argued that the alleged acts did not attract the stringent provisions invoked and that there were inconsistencies in the victim’s statements.
After examining the material on record, the Court observed that prima facie involvement of the applicant was evident, particularly in relation to allegations of influencing the victim’s religious beliefs and participating in a coordinated plan. The Court noted that the case appeared to be “multi-dimensional and multi-layered,” involving organised attempts to influence the victim.
Emphasising the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing nature of the investigation, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy. It further reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, holding that the case did not warrant pre-arrest protection at this stage.
Appearances
- Shri R. J. Kasliwal, for the Applicant.
- Shri A. S. Misar, District Government Prosecutor (DGP), for the State, along with the Investigating Officer.
- Shri M. G. Kurkute, learned Advocate, for the Victim.