Hindu girl lured from home and subjected to forced conversion attempt in Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : 30a7d83 | Location : Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Tue, 14 April, 2026

Case ID : 30a7d83

Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

14 April, 2026

Hindu girl lured from home and subjected to forced conversion attempt in Uttar Pradesh

Predatory Proselytisation

Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Family claims grooming

Case Summary

A Hindu girl in Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh, was lured away from her home by a 22-year-old Muslim man who attempted to forcibly convert her to Islam. Her mother filed a written complaint with the police, who swiftly recovered the victim and arrested the perpetrator within two days. He was produced before a court and sent to judicial custody. On 14 April 2026, the victim's mother filed a written complaint at Kotawali Dehat police station, stating that a man had deceived her daughter and taken her away with the intent to forcibly convert her to Islam. Police registered a First Information Report [FIR] immediately under section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS, the Indian Penal Code replacement legislation] and sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Vidhi Viruddh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhiniyam [Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act]. Superintendent of Police Aparna Rajat Kaushik directed immediate and strict action upon receiving the complaint. A team was formed under the leadership of the Additional Superintendent of Police and the Sadar Circle Officer, with the specific responsibility of locating and safely recovering the victim and arresting the perpetrator without delay. Police recovered the victim safely during the investigation. The following day, the named accused, Tamatar alias Monu, a 22-year-old resident of the Maliin Basti locality of Ramaipatti, was arrested. He was produced before a court, which remanded him to judicial custody.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Predatory Proselytisation". The sub-category for this case is "Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion" Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. Another sub-category for this case is "Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation and subtle indoctrination". The tertiary category here is "Family claims grooming". Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime in which a Hindu girl in Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh, was deliberately lured away from her home by a Muslim man who then subjected her to a forced conversion attempt. The perpetrator did not act impulsively. He identified a Hindu woman, cultivated sufficient trust to persuade her to leave her home voluntarily, and then used that manufactured compliance to pursue the forced religious transformation of a Hindu woman as his explicit objective. The deliberate luring of the Hindu woman away from her home is the primary religious marker of this case. The perpetrator did not attempt the forced conversion in a public space or through an open confrontation. He used beguiling and sustained manipulation to draw the victim away from her home, separating her from her family and from any immediate means of seeking help or protection. This choice was deliberate and calculated. By removing the Hindu woman from her home before attempting the conversion, the perpetrator ensured that she was isolated, dependent, and without recourse at the moment the coercion began. The manipulation was not incidental to the crime. It was the precondition that the perpetrator created specifically to make the forced conversion possible. The attempted forced conversion to Islam is the second and most explicit religious marker of this case. The perpetrator's objective was not robbery, assault, or any other form of criminal gain. It was the religious transformation of a Hindu woman. The conversion attempt was the destination toward which the entire preceding process of manipulation had been directed. The perpetrator chose a Hindu woman as his target, constructed a relationship sufficient to draw her away from her family, and then used her isolation to pursue his religious objective. The Hindu identity of the victim was not incidental to the crime. It was the reason the crime was committed. A Muslim man does not attempt to forcibly convert a woman to Islam unless that woman's non-Muslim identity is the problem he is trying to solve. The registration of charges under Uttar Pradesh Vidhi Viruddh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhiniyam [Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act] reflects an institutional recognition that the conversion attempt was not merely a personal dispute or a criminal opportunism but a deliberate and unlawful act of religious coercion directed at a Hindu woman. The Act specifically criminalises conversion through allurement, misrepresentation, force, or undue influence. Its application in this case confirms that the perpetrator exploited the manufactured vulnerability of an isolated Hindu woman to pursue a religiously motivated objective that the state itself has deemed criminal. The mother's recognition of the grooming dimension of the crime is the fourth religious marker. The victim's mother did not frame her complaint merely as a case of abduction. She specifically identified the manner in which her daughter had been lured away through deception and manipulation, reflecting a parental recognition that the crime had begun long before the physical removal of her daughter from the home. The grooming process, through which the perpetrator cultivated the victim's trust before exploiting it, was itself an act of predatory religious targeting. The perpetrator chose to invest the time and effort required to manufacture compliance rather than resort to immediate physical force, because manufactured compliance gave him access to a Hindu woman that open coercion would not have secured. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, the conduct of the perpetrator reflected more than a simple act of abduction or criminal opportunism. By deliberately identifying a Hindu woman, manufacturing her trust through sustained manipulation, separating her from her family and home, and then using that manufactured isolation to pursue her forced conversion to Islam, his actions demonstrated a clear and deliberate disregard for her Hindu religious identity and her right to practise and maintain her faith. The victim was targeted specifically because she was Hindu, and the entire preceding process of grooming and luring was constructed with the sole purpose of placing a Hindu woman in a position where her religious transformation could be imposed upon her by force. This reflects an underlying intent to target, isolate, and religiously coerce a Hindu woman, rooted in a hostility toward her Hindu identity that cannot be characterised as anything other than religiously motivated. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, it was added to the hate crime database of the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, not when it was reported or published. The source does not specify the exact date on which the perpetrator first lured the victim away from her home. Due to this lack of information, the publication date of 15 April 2026 has been used as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes. This was recorded for documentation purposes only.