Hindu minor sexually exploited, blackmailed and pressured to convert to Islam for over a decade by Muslim man in Jalna, Maharashtra
Jalna, Maharashtra, India 
5 May, 2016
Case Summary
In the Jalna district of Maharashtra, a Hindu woman filed a complaint accusing a Muslim man, Sheikh Imran Sheikh Habib, of sexually exploiting, blackmailing and pressuring her to convert to Islam for nearly ten years. The complaint was registered at Paradh police station in Bhokardan tehsil. According to the victim, the abuse began in 2016 when she was a minor studying in Class 9. According to the complaint, Sheikh Imran first came into contact with the victim via social media. He gradually developed a relationship with her and later began threatening and manipulating her. The victim stated that while she was bathing, the accused secretly recorded objectionable photographs and videos of her without her knowledge. He then used those private images to blackmail her and threatened to make them public if she refused to comply with his demands. The victim stated that the accused repeatedly raped her at different locations over the years by threatening to circulate her private photographs and videos. According to the complaint, the sexual exploitation continued from 2016 onwards. The assaults took place in several areas, including Bhokardan, Walsawangi, Paradh, Jalna city and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The woman stated that she remained under constant fear and pressure due to the threats issued by the accused. The victim further complained that Sheikh Imran pressured her to convert to Islam and abandon her Hindu faith. According to the complaint, he forced her to wear a burqa and gave her copies of the Quran in both Urdu and Marathi to read. She stated that the accused repeatedly instructed her to follow Islamic religious practices and attempted to compel her to adopt Islamic customs. The woman also stated that Sheikh Imran forced her to learn namaz through video calls and pressured her to recite Islamic prayers. According to her statement, he continuously insisted that she accept Islam. She stated that the pressure to convert was not limited to verbal persuasion but was accompanied by threats, coercion and sustained psychological intimidation. Upon the complaint, the police registered cases against Sheikh Imran’s father, Sheikh Habib, and his brother, Sheikh Junaid. Another family member was also booked in connection with the matter. The complaint stated that the family members were aware of the acts committed by the accused and were connected to the broader pattern of intimidation faced by the victim. Following the complaint, Paradh police registered a case under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sections related to forced religious conversion. Jalna Superintendent of Police Tejbir Singh Sandhu confirmed that Sheikh Imran and his father had been arrested. Police stated that further investigation into the charges, including the charges of rape, blackmail and coercive religious conversion, was ongoing.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is: Predatory proselytisation. Within this, the first subcategory selected is- Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviours. 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. The other subcategory is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Within this, the tertiary categories are- "Victim says was brainwashed/groomed" ", Rape and sexual assault/harassment", "Conversion of minor". 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 perpetrator's contrasting faith. 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. Another primary category for this case is "Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes". The sub-category for this case is "Brainwashed and/or groomed". The tertiary categories here are "Rape and sexual assault/harassment", "Conversion of minor" and "Pattern of targeting Hindu minors". 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. Another sub-category for this case is "Blackmailed to convert". When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman is blackmailed to convert to another religion, owing to her religious identity as a Hindu. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim; however, there could be cases where the relationship is not consensual, and the non-Hindu man starts blackmailing a Hindu woman to convert her religion. In these cases, it is often seen that the Hindu woman is blackmailed with intimate photos and/or videos, threats of harm to her or her family, threats of violence, etc. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Another sub-category for this case is "Assault or threat upon refusal to convert" When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressurising the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat are not considered a part of the hate tracker, even though it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. This case demonstrated a clear pattern where sexual exploitation, psychological domination, and religious coercion operated together rather than as separate acts. The accused first targeted the Hindu minor girl through eve-teasing and later secretly recorded her while she was bathing, turning that violation of privacy into the central instrument of control against her. The pressure to adopt Islamic practices did not emerge in isolation or through voluntary religious engagement. It occurred within a framework of sustained intimidation. The secretly recorded material became the mechanism through which dependency and silence were enforced, allowing religious pressure to be continuously imposed upon the victim. The sequence and continuity of the conduct were particularly significant. The coercion was maintained over a prolonged period in a manner designed to create emotional captivity and suppress resistance. The use of compromising material as leverage fundamentally altered the power balance between the accused and the victim. Once such control was established, demands relating to faith, dress, prayer, or religious practice no longer carried the character of personal persuasion. They became instruments of submission imposed under duress. The insistence on replacing the victim’s existing religious identity with another faith tradition, therefore, could not be separated from the broader pattern of domination. The choice of a Hindu minor girl as the target was highly significant in this case. A 15-year-old schoolgirl occupied a position of extreme vulnerability, emotionally dependent, socially constrained, and far less capable of resisting sustained intimidation than an adult woman. At such an age, the fear of social disgrace, family shame, and public exposure through obscene material could become psychologically paralysing. The accused exploited this vulnerability precisely by creating conditions where the victim’s fear of humiliation could be continuously used to break her resistance and impose religious pressure upon her. A Hindu minor girl trapped under the threat of intimate material being circulated had limited avenues for escape or support, and the prolonged nature of the coercion reflected a deliberate understanding that a child in such circumstances would be easier to manipulate, isolate, and pressure into abandoning her. It was further important to note that since the victim was a minor, the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, were particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They might not have had the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the Muslim perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Since this case exemplified the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it was a blatant act of religious hate, which was why it had been documented here in the hate tracker. The religious dimension became even clearer from the nature of the demands imposed. The conduct was not confined to maintaining influence over the victim personally; it extended into regulating her visible religious behaviour and compelling participation in another religion’s practices. Such actions reflected an attempt not merely to control an individual, but to erode and replace her inherited religious identity. Conversion obtained in an atmosphere of fear and blackmail lacked any element of genuine conscience or voluntary belief. Instead, religion became a tool of power exercised against a vulnerable individual. Another important aspect was the sustained nature of the coercion. Conduct continuing over several years indicated persistence, calculation, and a conscious effort to maintain long-term control. This was not a momentary lapse or impulsive act. The repeated pressure ensured that fear remained constant and that the victim stayed trapped within a cycle where resistance carried severe personal consequences. Such prolonged coercion deepened the psychological impact upon the victim and reinforced the religiously oppressive character of the abuse. The religious coercion in this case was not abstract or symbolic. According to the complaint, the accused attempted to alter the victim’s visible religious identity and daily practices by forcing her to wear a burqa, read the Quran, and learn namaz. These acts carried deep religious significance and were closely tied to Islamic identity and observance. Imposing such practices upon a Hindu girl under conditions of fear and blackmail transformed them from matters of personal faith into instruments of control. The objective was not merely influence over the victim’s personal life, but the gradual erasure of her existing Hindu identity through compelled religious conformity. Particularly significant was the insistence on performing and learning Islamic rituals and reading the Quran, through continuous supervision, including video calls. This reflected an attempt to normalise religious submission as part of the victim’s daily existence while she remained trapped in a coercive environment. Religious practices derived meaning from free belief and voluntary acceptance. When a victim was compelled to adopt those practices under intimidation and psychological pressure, the rituals ceased to represent faith and instead became markers of domination. The conduct, therefore, reflected not spiritual guidance but the use of religion as a mechanism to impose obedience and weaken attachment to the victim’s own faith. The insistence on making the victim abandon her outward Hindu identity and wear a burqa is also highly significant because visible religious expression often forms an important part of personal dignity, cultural continuity, and individual identity. Forcing a Hindu girl to alter her appearance and externally conform to another religious identity under conditions of fear and coercion carries consequences far beyond personal control. It creates psychological pressure to detach from her own faith and symbolically submit to a different religious framework. Such acts send a clear message that her existing religious identity is not to be retained but replaced. In this context, the coercion was not limited to personal exploitation alone but extended into an attempt to suppress and transform the victim’s religious autonomy itself. Given these circumstances, the victim’s Hindu identity was not incidental to the abuse but formed a central component of the coercive process. The acts revealed a pattern where vulnerability was exploited to impose religious conformity and weaken attachment to the victim’s own faith. Since the abuse combined sexual exploitation with sustained pressure to abandon Hindu religious identity and adopt Islamic practices under coercive conditions, this case reflected a religiously motivated hate crime and had therefore been documented in the hate tracker. Disclaimer: The exact date of when the Hindu woman and the Muslim perpetrator first came into contact was not specified in the available sources. However, the year of initial contact was indicated ten years ago. The tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, not when it was reported or published. In this case, 6th May 2016 has been used as the indicative incident date, derived by combining the known year with the article publication date of 6th May 2026. This date has been recorded for documentation purposes only. Disclaimer: At the time the incident happened, the victim was a minor; accordingly, the victim's age has been recoded as minor for documentation purpose.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
