A sessions court in Nashik on Saturday rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Nida Ejaz Khan, an accused in the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO sexual harassment and alleged religious coercion case.
Additional Sessions Judge KG Joshi refused to grant pre-arrest protection to Khan, exposing her to custodial action. Earlier on April 27, the sessions court had heard submissions from the special public prosecutor appearing for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and Advocate Baba Sayyed, representing Khan, during in-camera proceedings.
Khan had sought anticipatory bail under the criminal procedure framework, citing her pregnancy and delay in registration of the first information report as mitigating factors. Her earlier application seeking interim protection from arrest had also been rejected by the court on April 20.
The case arises from multiple FIRs registered at Deolali and Mumbai Naka police stations, alleging offences including sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, stalking, workplace misconduct, and acts allegedly aimed at religious conversion. Eight accused persons, including senior employees and an operations manager, have been named in the investigation.
As per the SIT, the accused engaged in conduct amounting to sexual harassment of women employees, issuance of threats, public humiliation, adverse performance reporting, and remarks hurting religious sentiments. The allegations further include inducement and coercive attempts to influence the religious beliefs of the complainant.
Khan remains the only accused yet to be arrested. She is also alleged to have made derogatory references to Hindu deities.
During arguments, the defence contended that there was no specific legislation in Maharashtra criminalising forced religious conversion and submitted that the prosecution had not clearly invoked relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It was further argued that the case primarily related to allegations of hurting religious sentiments and that multiple FIRs arising out of the same transaction ought to be clubbed together in accordance with settled legal principles.
Opposing the plea, the Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and the SIT, relied on case records and police diaries to allege the existence of a larger criminal conspiracy. The prosecution claimed that the victim, belonging to a vulnerable social group, was subjected to inducement, including exposure to religious material and promises of overseas opportunities, in an attempt to influence her religious practices.
Upon consideration of the material on record and submissions advanced by both sides, the court rejected the anticipatory bail plea. A detailed order is awaited.