Two Hindu women kidnapped and forcibly converted by Muslim conversion racket in Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : 30a81e2 | Location : Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 2 May, 2026

Case ID : 30a81e2

Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India

2 May, 2026

Two Hindu women kidnapped and forcibly converted by Muslim conversion racket in Uttar Pradesh

Predatory Proselytisation

Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Pattern of targeting Hindus

Case Summary

Two sisters, aged 33 and 18, disappeared from Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Their disappearance exposed an organised inter-state racket operating across multiple states with the purpose of illegally converting Hindu women to Islam. An FIR [First Information Report] was registered at Sadar Bazaar police station under BNS [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita] sections 87 (kidnapping) and 111 (organised crime), along with provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. One of the sisters gave a statement before a magistrate confirming she had been forcefully converted. The racket operated across Rajasthan, Haryana, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Abdul Rehman was identified as the main accused. The network functioned through a division of roles: Jatin Kapoor, alias Jasim, a 32-year-old MBA and freelance web designer based in Delhi, used his digital expertise to identify and lure young women for conversion. Mohammed Hasan, 59, a resident of Deeg district, Rajasthan, prepared fraudulent marriage documents for targeted girls. Talmeez ur Rahman, 47, who ran a shoe and fruit business, was traced to Kashmir and was in direct contact with Abdul Rehman. Pravez Akhtar, a Delhi University [DU] graduate running a computer hardware shop in Delhi, was radicalised by the main accused alongside Kapoor to participate in the racket. Uttar Pradesh police, operating under Operation Asmita — launched by the Chief Minister for the protection of women — arrested 14 individuals in an earlier phase of the operation. After those arrests, remaining members went into hiding but were kept under surveillance. Non-Bailable Warrants [NBWs] were subsequently obtained from court. Kapoor, Hasan, Talmeez, and Pravez were arrested from Rajasthan and Delhi. A total of 18 suspects had been taken into custody by the time of publication. Over a dozen girls were rescued from across five states. The source of funds for the racket's conversion activities remained under investigation.

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 "Pattern of targeting Hindus". 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. The perpetrators in this case operated as a structured, multi-member criminal network with the explicit purpose of converting Hindu women to Islam. The case was not an isolated act of proselytisation but an organised inter-state operation with defined roles, active recruitment, and a documented pattern of targeting Hindu women across five states. The network's structure itself is a religious marker. Each member performed a distinct function in service of the conversion objective: digital luring, fraudulent marriage documentation, financial logistics, and field coordination. Jatin Kapoor, operating under the alias Jasim, used his expertise as a web designer to identify and approach targets online. The use of a Muslim alias alongside a Hindu name is significant — it indicates deliberate concealment of religious identity as an operational method, consistent with documented patterns of predatory proselytisation in which Hindu women are approached under false pretences before conversion pressure is applied. The preparation of fraudulent marriage documents by Mohammed Hasan further establishes that marriage was being used as a conversion instrument, not as a genuine matrimonial arrangement. The radicalisation of Kapoor and Pravez Akhtar by the main accused, Abdul Rehman, reveals an indoctrination chain embedded within the network. Both men were brought into the racket through a process of religious grooming — their recruitment was not merely criminal but ideological. This internal radicalisation dynamic demonstrates that the network was not simply profit-motivated but was organised around a religious conversion agenda, with its own members subject to the same indoctrination methodology used on victims. The geographic reach of the operation across Rajasthan, Haryana, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, combined with the rescue of over a dozen Hindu women, establishes a deliberate and sustained pattern of targeting Hindu women specifically. The victims were not randomly selected. The network's operational focus on Hindu women across multiple states over an extended period constitutes directional religious targeting — Hindu identity was the selection criterion for victimisation. One of the rescued victims gave a statement before a magistrate confirming she had been forcefully converted. This direct testimony establishes that conversion, rather than any other objective, was the terminal aim of the kidnapping and organised crime operation. The registration of the FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 alongside BNS sections 87 and 111 reflects official recognition that the criminal conduct was inseparable from its religious conversion purpose. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, the perpetrators' conduct reflected more than organised criminal activity. By constructing a multi-state network specifically to identify, lure, kidnap, and forcibly convert Hindu women, deploying religious concealment and fraudulent documentation as operational tools, and radicalising members through ideological indoctrination, their actions demonstrated a systematic and directional hostility toward Hindu religious identity. The victims were targeted specifically because they were Hindu, and every instrument of the operation — digital luring, false documentation, inter-state coordination — was chosen because it would be most effective in removing Hindu women from their religious identity. This reflects an underlying hostility toward Hindu religious 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 rather than when it was reported or published. The exact date on which the incident occurred was not confirmed in the source. 1 May 2025 has been used as the primary incident date, derived from one year prior to the source's publication date of 1 May 2026, as the source states the case came to light "last year." This was recorded for documentation purposes only. Disclaimer: The exact number of individuals who participated in the inter-state conversion racket has not been confirmed beyond 18 as stated in the source. For documentation purposes, the perpetrator count has been recorded as 18. This was recorded for documentation purposes only.