Nashik: In a ruling that has ignited fierce debate across India, Additional Sessions Judge Kedar Joshi (also referred to as KG Joshi) of the Nashik Road Court granted bail on July 6 to Nida Ejaz Khan, a key accused in the high-profile Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) BPO religious conversion and alleged sexual harassment case.
#WATCH | Nashik TCS case | Advocate Rahul Kasliwal says, "Two criminal cases were registered against Nida Khan regarding the TCS matter…Nashik Road Sessions Court has granted bail to both Nida Khan and Tausif, subject to certain conditions. These include not intimidating… pic.twitter.com/l3I4mi0xuO
— ANI (@ANI) July 8, 2026
Advocate Rahul Kasliwal says, “Two criminal cases were registered against Nida Khan regarding the TCS matter…Nashik Road Sessions Court has granted bail to both Nida Khan and Tausif, subject to certain conditions. These include not intimidating witnesses, appearing in court on every scheduled date, cooperating with the ongoing investigation if required, and furnishing a surety of Rs 75,000. While considering the bail, the court likely took into account the seriousness of the offence, the filing of the charge sheet, and, importantly, her pregnancy…”
The court’s reasoning that ‘no child should endure the trauma and social stigma of being born in prison’, while simultaneously drawing a parallel to Bhagwan Shri Krishna’s birth has triggered sharp criticism on social media, with many questioning both the humanitarian grounds and the appropriateness of invoking a revered Hindu deity in such a context.
What does Lord Krishna have to do with the bail in a TCS religious conversion case?
A Nashik court invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to Nida Khan, citing her pregnancy and the trauma of a child being born in prison.
Here's what the court said👇https://t.co/qKgJKfJjnG pic.twitter.com/aOKFIaw4cW
— OpIndia.com (@OpIndia_com) July 9, 2026
History of FIRs in the Nashik TCS BPO case
On March 26, 2026, the first FIR was registered at Deolali Camp (Devlali) Police Station. A 23-year-old woman employee filed a complaint alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage, sexual harassment, and attempts at religious coercion by colleague Danish Shaikh (a married team leader who hid his marital status for the longest time). The FIR also named others, including Tausif Attar and Nida Khan, with allegations of objectionable remarks about religion. This marked the formal start of public police action.
Between March 26 and March 31, 2026, many more employees (primarily women) came forward. Multiple fresh FIRs were registered, mostly at Mumbai Naka Police Station in Nashik. Complaints followed similar patterns: sexual harassment, stalking, inappropriate touching, sexually coloured remarks, work pressure for compliance, and pressure related to religious choices.
By April 3, 2026, a total of nine FIRs were registered (one at Deolali Camp Police Station and eight at Mumbai Naka Police Station). These included complaints from eight women employees and one male employee (alleging hurt to religious sentiments and conversion pressure). The FIRs named several team leaders and an HR/operations manager.
Early to mid-April 2026, an SIT – a Special Investigation Team was formed under ACP (Crime) Sandeep Mitke to probe all nine FIRs. Police examined WhatsApp chats, emails, call records, bank transactions, and other evidence. Some material reportedly pointed to external religious influencers (e.g., a Malaysia-linked preacher). The seven of the accused employees were arrested from April 7–13, 2026 (including team leaders such as Danish Shaikh, Tausif Attar, Asif Ansari, Shafi Sheikh, Shah Rukh Qureshi, Raza Memon, and an Assistant General Manager/HR personnel named Ashwini Chainani), with Nida’s whereabouts unlnown. TCS suspended all the accused from its service.
Meanwhile, Nida Khan went underground. She evaded arrest for nearly a month, shifting her locations. Nida Khan was arrested on May 7, 2026.
She was taken into custody by Nashik Police from a rented flat in the Naregaon area of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad), Maharashtra, after remaining absconding for nearly a month (around 25–40 days, depending on reports) following the initial FIRs in late March.
AIMIM corporator Matin Patel (also referred to as Mateen/Mateen Majid Patel) has been accused by police and in reports of sheltering or providing help to Nida Khan while she was absconding.
Nida Khan uses her pregnancy as a clause to seek bail
Nida Khan, who is approximately five months pregnant, was one of the accused in a case registered at Deolali Police Station. The complainant, a Hindu woman employed at the TCS facility, alleged that Nida Khan, along with co-accused Danish Sheikh and Tausif Attar, subjected her to systematic pressure to convert to Islam.
According to the police and charge sheet details, the victim was provided Islamic books, videos, and materials, trained in namaz, encouraged to wear a burqa, and even had her name changed to a Muslim one (Haniya) as part of the alleged brainwashing effort.
Serious allegations also include mental harassment, financial exploitation, and attempts to send the victim abroad (thus invoking stringent clauses such as human trafficking etc.)
The court’s July 6 order noted the accused woman’s pregnancy and observed, “The trauma of taking birth in prison like Bhagwan Shri Krishna or the related social stigma is not bearable for anyone.”
It emphasised using judicial discretion to protect the unborn child and the mother, stating that such a painful situation should be avoided in the interest of the child’s well-being.
Bail was also granted to co-accused Tausif Attar, while another accused – Danish Sheikh’s application was rejected.
This decision comes despite earlier rejections of Nida Khan’s bail pleas.
Court flip-flop on pregnancy grounds raises questions
The ruling has drawn particular scrutiny because the same court, under the same judge, had rejected Nida Khan’s anticipatory bail plea on May 2, 2026. At that time, the court found prima facie evidence of her involvement in an organised effort to influence the victim’s religious sentiments.
The May order highlighted custodial interrogation’s necessity to uncover potential wider networks, including links to a “Malegaon party” and possible foreign connections, such as a contact in Malaysia. The judge had explicitly stated that pregnancy alone did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations under Sections 69, 75, 299, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Prosecution arguments in May underscored that Nida Khan was not a mere bystander but actively participated by sharing religious content, providing a burqa, visiting the victim’s home for religious instruction, and contributing to the alleged multi-layered conspiracy.
The victim’s statement, supported by her family, detailed pressure to consume non-vegetarian food, derogatory remarks against Hindu deities, and caste-based humiliation. The court had then described the case as “multi-dimensional and multi-layered,” requiring thorough investigation.
Legal observers note that while humanitarian considerations for pregnant women are common in bail matters, the dramatic shift in the same court within two months, coupled with the specific religious analogy, has fuelled perceptions of inconsistency.
Public outrage erupts on social media
The invocation of Lord Krishna has particularly inflamed sentiments. Within hours of reports emerging, social media platforms, especially X (formerly Twitter), saw a surge in critical posts.
Users expressed dismay at linking a modern criminal case to the divine birth of Krishna, who, according to Hindu tradition, was born in a prison cell in Mathura to Devaki and Vasudeva while they were imprisoned by the tyrant Kansa.
धार्मिक द्वेष के केस में भगवान कृष्ण को घसीटने का क्या मतलब? क्या सरकार कंस है या किसी कोपंठ परिवर्तित करने का मामला देवकी पर हुए अत्याचार से समानांतर है। मीडिया में सुर्खी के लिए ऐसे मंतव्य दुखद हैं। https://t.co/KFOMAbm0np
— Ratan Sharda 🇮🇳 रतन शारदा (@RatanSharda55) July 10, 2026
One prominent reaction came from @RatanSharda55, who questioned: “What is the meaning of dragging Lord Krishna into a case of religious hatred? Is the government Kansa or is this conversion case being paralleled with atrocities on Devaki? Such comments for media headlines are sad.”
What a pathetic excuse just to let a criminal out.
This is how a corrupt institution behaves.
— ||xXx|| (@llxXxll__Killer) July 9, 2026
The post linked the ruling to alleged demographic challenges faced by Hindu society through conversion and “love jihad” cases, calling for stricter anti-conversion laws and fast-track trials.
Another netizen @DeepakRPSingh, asked pointedly whether the comparison to Bhagwan Krishna was appropriate, reflecting a sentiment shared by thousands who viewed the analogy as insensitive or misplaced in a judicial order involving allegations of hurting Hindu religious sentiments.
Hashtags related to the case, “NashikCourt”, “NidaKhan”, and “KrishnaBail” trended briefly, with users debating judicial compassion versus accountability.
Many argued that while the welfare of an unborn child is important, it should not override the gravity of organised conversion efforts or allow accused persons to evade investigation through timing pregnancies strategically.
Critics have pointed to similar past instances, such as the grant of bail to Safoora Zargar in the 2020 Delhi riots case on humanitarian grounds during pregnancy, as part of a perceived pattern.
New trick before committing a crime for women.
Just get pregnant before doing it.
— void (@wosgnn) July 9, 2026
Another use with the handle @BeingPolitical1 highlighted broader concerns: “This sets a dangerous pattern, commit the crime, get pregnant… and walk out on ‘humanitarian grounds’. We saw the same in 2020 Delhi riots cases… Pregnancy cannot become a shield for serious crimes against society”.
Case background and allegations
The case dates back to events from 2022 onwards at a TCS BPO facility in Nashik. The complainant alleged that after being hired, she was befriended by the accused, who gradually exerted influence. Danish Sheikh faces the most serious charges, including physical exploitation under the pretext of marriage, financial demands, and mental harassment.
Nida Khan’s role was described as pivotal in the religious indoctrination aspect. Police investigations recovered digital evidence, including shared YouTube links, Instagram reels, Islamic literature, and communications suggesting a coordinated plan.
One accused, AIMIM leader Mateen Patel, was alleged to have provided shelter to Nida Khan to evade police. The SIT probe pointed to efforts to alter the victim’s identity and relocate her, raising questions about potential larger networks.
Legal and social implications
There is a general concern amongst people and experts that these kind of pleas and decisions may set a precedent that could be misused, especially in sensitive cases involving religious conversion, an issue that remains contentious in several states with or without specific anti-conversion legislation.
Maharashtra currently lacks a dedicated anti-conversion law, a point defence lawyers had raised earlier, arguing that casual religious discussions do not automatically constitute offences. The prosecution, however, maintains that the evidence shows coercion and organised activity, not mere dialogue.
The ruling comes amid growing national discourse on religious conversions, demographic shifts, and the need for robust legal safeguards. Social media outrage reflects deeper societal anxieties, particularly among sections concerned about targeted conversions of vulnerable individuals, especially women from Hindu communities.
As the case proceeds to trial, with other accused still in custody or facing proceedings, the Nashik court’s order will likely face scrutiny in higher courts or through appeals. For now, it has become a flashpoint, encapsulating tensions between individual rights, religious freedoms, law enforcement needs, and public faith in the judiciary’s impartiality.
The comparison to Bhagwan Krishna’s birth, intended perhaps as a cultural reference to underscore suffering, has instead caused obvious hurt, shock, outrage and debate amongst citizens. In a diverse democracy like India, where faith intersects deeply with public life, such judicial remarks carry significant weight and invite equally significant public examination.
