Hindu minor girl targeted, lured and pressurised to marry by a Muslim man pretending to be Hindu in Banswara, Rajasthan

Case ID : 30a7a91 | Location : Bhilwara, Rajasthan, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 22 March, 2026

Case ID : 30a7a91

Bhilwara, Rajasthan, India

22 March, 2026

Hindu minor girl targeted, lured and pressurised to marry by a Muslim man pretending to be Hindu in Banswara, Rajasthan

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Man pretends to be Hindu

Name Changed

Brainwashed and/or groomed

Case Summary

In the Shahpura area of Bhilwara district, Rajasthan, a Hindu girl was targeted, lured, brainwashed and deceived through social media by a Muslim man pretending to be Hindu. The muslim man from Bengaluru used a fake Hindu identity to trap the Hindu girl in a relationship and pressurised her to marry. According to the report, on 23 March 2026, the girl’s father submitted a complaint at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, stating that a Muslim man who had introduced himself as “Aryan Singh Rajput” had befriended his daughter through Instagram. Based on this false identity, he mentally influenced her and began exerting pressure on her for marriage. Upon suspicion, the family made further enquiries, during which it emerged that the accused’s real name was Murshidul Islam Laskar and that he was a resident of Bengaluru. Following this, a case was registered at the Shahpura Police Station as Case No. 86/2026 under Section 78(2) of the BNS, Section 66 of the IT Act, and Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, and an investigation was initiated. Considering the seriousness of the matter, a special police team was constituted under the supervision of senior police officials and led by the station in charge. With technical assistance, the police identified the accused and traced his location. A police team was then sent to Bengaluru, where the accused was apprehended and arrested in Helakadi. Further legal action was thereafter initiated against him.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is- Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is- Man pretends to be Hindu. The tertiary category selected is- Name Changed. When a non-Hindu man pretends to be a Hindu to deceive a Hindu woman into a relationship, the act is seen as triggered by malicious intentions. In some cases, the woman eventually accepts the man’s original religious identity and converts after the man’s identity is revealed. These cases could be argued as cases of religious brainwashing and a result of the pressure a woman feels after getting into a relationship with a man. The woman, it can be argued, also changed her religious identity because of the stigma she believes she might face if she chooses to walk out of a deceptive relationship. However, for the purpose of documenting hate crimes, the cases in this subcategory are limited to those where there is explicit violence aimed at religious conversion against the wishes of the victim (force-feeding beef, blackmailing with intimate videos, rape on refusal to convert, etc), or if the woman herself complains of the man’s religious deception. In such cases, it is established that the deception of the non-Hindu man had a specific aim of religious conversion or targeting of the victim due to her Hindu religious identity, therefore, making it a religiously motivated hate crime. The other subcategory selected is- Brainwashed and/or Groomed. In several cases of grooming, it is seen that a non-Hindu perpetrator has a pattern of sexually exploiting minor Hindu girls. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity with the perpetrators being Muslim, similarly, if a non-Hindu perpetrator or perpetrators have a pattern of targeting Hindu minors for sexual exploitation, with or without conversion, it would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will, and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors, or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult are crimes, for this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity, with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered hate crimes. In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will, and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors, or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult are crimes, for this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity, with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered hate crimes. This case qualified as a religiously motivated hate crime because the accused deliberately concealed his real identity and assumed a Hindu name to establish contact with a Hindu girl through social media. The deception was not incidental; it was the very means through which trust was built and influence was gained. By presenting himself as “Aryan Singh Rajput”, he specifically used religious familiarity to approach and manipulate the victim, which directly brought the case within the scope of identity-based targeting. The use of a false Hindu identity was significant because it showed a clear intent to deceive the victim into a relationship that she and her family may not have otherwise consented to. Such concealment of religious identity undermined the victim’s autonomy and her right to make informed decisions, especially where cultural and religious considerations are central to trust and personal relationships. The deception, therefore, was not merely personal dishonesty but carried a distinct religious angle. If the accused had genuinely intended to pursue a bona fide relationship, there would have been no reason to conceal his real identity from the very outset. The conscious decision to hide his name and present himself as a Hindu revealed the intention behind forming the relationship. It showed that the foundation of the interaction was not honesty or consent, but calculated deception. This itself brought forth the malicious intent behind approaching the victim and demonstrated that the relationship was initiated through manipulation rather than genuine interest. Further, the victim in this case was a minor, which made the element of grooming particularly important. The contact was initiated through Instagram and was followed by sustained mental influence and pressure for marriage. This reflected a pattern of gradual manipulation rather than a spontaneous interaction. The process of building emotional dependence and lowering resistance over time is a recognised feature of grooming, especially where minors are involved and are more vulnerable to psychological influence. The invocation of POCSO provisions in the registered case further strengthened the conclusion that the victim’s age and vulnerability were central to the offence. In cases involving minors, questions of consent are legally redundant, and any attempt to cultivate trust for romantic or marital pressure assumes a far graver character. Here, the use of a false Hindu name coupled with the sustained pressure on a Hindu minor pointed towards a deliberate attempt to exploit both her age and religious identity. This also established a clear pattern of targeting through deception. The accused chose to fabricate a Hindu identity to make the interaction acceptable and to secure trust. This method itself demonstrated premeditation and reflected a targeted approach towards a Hindu girl by exploiting religious familiarity as a tool of access and control. Given that the case involved identity fraud, targeted deception based on religion, and the grooming of a Hindu minor through sustained influence and pressure, it clearly met the threshold of a religiously motivated hate crime and was therefore included in the tracker. Disclaimer: The tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, not when it was reported. In this case, the exact date of the incident was not specified in the source material. Therefore, 23 March 2026 has been used as the indicative incident date, based on the complaint date mentioned in the report. This has been recorded for documentation purposes only.